Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #97546 > unrolled thread
| Started by | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-26 12:49 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-12-01 12:33 +0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 567 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
absence of max fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 12:49 -0800
absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 15:34 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 00:21 +0000
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 04:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-11-27 13:54 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 13:54 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-27 07:33 -0800
Re: absence of max Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-27 14:06 +0100
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-27 17:47 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 07:13 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-28 15:35 +0000
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 07:48 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 07:53 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 00:14 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 00:36 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 02:03 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-28 23:23 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-28 21:05 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-28 16:53 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 08:07 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 10:37 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 08:26 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 10:42 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 08:16 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 09:31 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 10:38 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 10:59 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 12:09 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 12:46 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 13:05 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 13:50 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 10:52 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 05:44 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 15:12 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 06:54 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-30 10:37 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 03:07 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-30 13:28 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 05:12 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-28 18:57 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 11:33 -0800
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-28 20:09 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 10:55 +0100
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 10:06 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 11:18 +0100
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 10:28 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 10:49 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 10:51 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 11:40 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 12:17 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 15:18 +0000
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 18:30 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 18:49 +0000
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-29 14:09 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-29 10:56 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-29 11:29 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 20:27 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 20:31 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-30 10:45 +0100
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-29 12:54 -0800
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-29 16:21 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 21:47 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 21:30 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-29 14:12 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 22:27 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 22:33 +0000
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-29 14:52 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-29 15:43 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 23:51 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 00:51 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-30 02:08 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-29 18:10 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 12:29 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-28 21:30 +0000
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 13:47 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 14:59 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 15:13 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 00:12 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 01:11 +0000
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 18:01 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 02:19 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-29 13:26 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 17:09 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 00:01 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 00:29 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 17:02 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 01:21 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 17:53 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-28 23:11 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 02:12 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 11:17 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-29 09:46 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 15:45 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-29 17:04 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-29 07:21 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 15:50 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-30 00:19 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 00:43 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-30 01:51 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-29 22:26 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 11:25 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 09:07 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 14:22 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-30 09:03 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 23:38 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-30 15:49 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 00:10 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-30 17:22 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 01:40 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-30 18:03 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 17:25 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 23:29 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 23:55 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-01 10:05 +0100
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-01 11:20 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 11:41 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-01 13:48 +0100
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 10:43 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-01 21:23 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 14:41 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-02 09:39 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 11:35 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-01 14:51 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 15:05 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 10:49 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 20:48 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-01 16:51 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-01 01:18 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 23:57 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-01 11:38 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-01 13:28 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-02 00:06 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-01 20:02 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-02 02:22 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-01 21:42 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 01:56 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 21:25 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 02:33 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-03 15:20 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-03 15:40 -0500
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-02 21:57 +1300
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 10:46 -0500
Re: absence of max asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-11-30 06:36 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 16:41 +0000
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-30 20:50 +1300
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 11:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-30 12:00 +0000
Re: absence of max James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-30 11:32 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-30 19:25 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 20:45 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-30 12:52 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-30 14:17 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-01 10:14 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 07:37 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-01 17:05 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 10:06 -0800
Re: absence of max James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-01 13:53 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 12:22 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-01 19:02 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-02 10:05 +0100
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-02 11:01 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-02 17:28 +0100
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-01 21:13 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 10:53 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 11:51 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 12:52 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 14:28 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 14:48 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 15:00 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-01 19:28 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-02 10:30 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 07:24 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 10:50 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 09:39 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-02 10:17 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-02 11:46 -0800
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-02 15:02 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 11:58 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-02 13:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 15:31 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 13:34 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 19:32 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-03 01:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 20:48 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 02:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 21:27 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 02:50 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 22:45 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-03 11:07 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-03 15:46 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-03 13:46 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 23:29 +0000
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-03 18:42 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 23:59 +0000
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 08:31 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-10 13:51 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-10 22:08 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-03 20:19 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-04 01:28 +0000
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 14:34 +1300
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-05 00:02 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-05 10:34 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 08:38 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-05 15:52 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 16:03 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-03 19:19 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-04 11:26 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 11:33 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-03 15:48 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-04 00:59 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-03 20:23 -0500
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-03 10:32 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-03 17:15 +0100
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-03 08:33 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-03 11:08 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 21:31 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-04 08:40 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-04 19:39 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-05 07:15 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 16:09 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-05 13:38 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-05 14:12 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 22:21 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-05 22:05 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 10:46 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-06 09:45 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 13:25 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-06 10:33 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 16:25 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-06 15:10 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 20:48 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-07 14:43 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 09:26 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-08 11:32 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 21:56 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-08 20:28 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:10 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 21:17 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:01 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 20:00 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 22:51 -0500
Re: absence of max cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2016-12-10 04:44 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-05 22:49 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-05 15:24 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 22:25 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 22:24 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-05 22:47 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 10:51 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-06 10:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 16:26 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-07 02:09 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 09:30 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 01:44 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 09:29 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 21:54 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:05 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 11:39 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:16 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 16:45 +0100
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-09 21:07 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 22:58 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-10 17:49 +0100
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-09 16:46 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 22:56 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-10 14:04 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-10 08:45 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-10 14:54 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 15:40 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-11 23:13 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 17:59 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 18:13 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:02 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-16 22:47 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 22:38 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 14:43 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-17 13:52 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 10:00 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 09:58 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 16:39 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 22:48 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-18 16:51 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 11:54 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-19 21:24 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 17:38 -0500
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-19 15:11 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 19:12 -0500
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-19 17:23 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 21:41 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-17 09:23 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 22:49 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-18 08:26 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 11:56 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-19 19:19 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 17:40 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-10 18:03 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 15:44 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-10 01:19 -0600
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 21:52 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:02 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-10 12:59 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 15:52 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 03:18 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 22:29 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 04:12 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:44 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-06 06:10 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 10:58 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-06 10:21 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-06 10:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 16:28 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-07 02:48 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 09:34 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 06:58 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 15:15 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 12:30 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 16:25 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 13:46 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-07 13:53 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 14:03 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-07 14:50 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 07:46 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-10 13:44 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-14 22:12 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 17:00 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 14:08 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 17:28 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 17:29 -0500
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-07 14:49 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 16:24 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-07 17:04 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 07:29 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-10 13:37 -0800
Re: absence of max me <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 14:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 02:19 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 02:07 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 09:36 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-08 16:22 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 10:52 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-08 08:11 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:08 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-08 12:50 -0800
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-09 10:14 +1300
Re: absence of max Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-12-08 22:17 +0100
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-09 10:21 +1300
Re: absence of max Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-12-08 22:24 +0100
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 13:06 +0100
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-09 21:15 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:05 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-10 03:22 -0600
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-10 15:12 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 15:57 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-12 00:13 -0600
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:48 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-10 14:11 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 15:59 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-11 23:18 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 17:59 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 18:18 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:04 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-16 22:48 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 22:39 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 14:45 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 10:01 -0500
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-17 11:27 -0800
People who confuse and jumble up the difference between past, present, and future (Was: absence of max) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-12-17 20:07 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:17 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:17 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:15 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 08:40 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 13:19 +0100
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 12:29 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 14:34 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:24 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 16:58 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:09 -0500
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-11 20:56 +1300
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-09 16:52 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 13:35 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 13:42 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 13:54 +0000
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 07:54 -0800
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-11 16:14 +0000
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 18:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-14 21:08 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:25 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:18 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 15:55 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:11 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:21 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-10 01:48 -0600
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 13:02 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:39 -0500
Re: absence of max cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2016-12-10 04:37 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-10 00:13 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 22:22 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:19 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-07 19:40 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 09:38 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-08 07:52 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 19:37 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-08 14:46 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-08 15:46 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-13 13:04 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-13 13:38 -0800
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-13 14:07 -0800
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-13 22:51 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-14 08:17 -0800
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-14 11:49 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-14 16:53 -0800
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-15 05:14 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-15 15:02 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-15 08:54 -0800
Re: absence of max raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-12-15 19:55 +0000
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-15 13:48 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-15 14:20 -0800
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-15 15:32 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-15 23:44 +0100
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-16 07:00 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-16 08:21 +0000
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-16 21:10 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-16 13:24 -0800
Re: absence of max "D. Aaron Sawyer" <aaron@110.net> - 2016-12-16 18:51 -0400
Re: absence of max raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-12-20 09:03 +0000
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-20 02:21 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-14 19:05 +0100
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-14 22:46 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-08 15:58 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 00:18 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-09 07:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-09 11:29 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 09:07 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-10 14:20 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 21:31 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:15 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-10 12:15 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 16:04 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:27 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 22:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-09 15:45 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:21 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:19 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-10 12:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 16:04 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 03:15 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 22:31 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 04:14 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:50 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 23:18 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:05 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-17 02:58 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 22:40 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 18:20 +0100
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 17:29 +0000
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 18:53 +0100
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 17:58 +0000
Re: absence of max cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2016-12-12 19:11 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-13 10:31 +0100
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-12 15:38 -0800
Re: absence of max raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-12-15 12:08 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:06 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-16 22:49 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 22:44 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 14:47 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 10:04 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 16:45 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 22:51 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-17 13:52 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 22:51 -0500
Re: absence of max Parity Error <kgf@quiscurat.net> - 2016-12-18 09:17 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:23 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-08 12:23 -0800
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 20:45 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:32 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 08:42 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:40 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 16:10 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:33 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-11 15:02 +0000
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-11 13:01 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 16:11 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-11 23:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 18:59 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 00:09 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 20:56 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 08:04 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:50 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-11 16:18 -0800
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-11 19:38 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 21:04 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 03:35 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:52 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 23:22 +0000
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-12 17:35 +1300
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:54 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 08:17 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 13:01 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 13:16 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 10:05 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 15:21 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:09 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-12 13:12 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 03:01 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 22:03 -0500
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-12 12:58 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:11 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-16 22:53 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 22:46 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 14:49 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 10:07 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 16:47 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 22:53 -0500
Re: absence of max Parity Error <kgf@quiscurat.net> - 2016-12-18 09:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 18:32 +0100
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-12 13:26 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 19:39 +0100
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-12 11:31 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 16:07 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-11 23:10 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 19:01 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 00:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 21:06 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 08:19 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 10:07 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 15:22 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:13 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-12 15:38 +0000
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-02 08:54 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-02 17:20 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 07:35 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-02 09:52 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 10:44 -0800
Re: absence of max James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-30 16:52 -0500
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-30 08:31 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-28 23:15 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 10:49 +0100
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-27 17:35 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-27 09:39 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-27 20:35 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 20:10 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-27 22:07 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 22:55 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-28 12:46 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-28 13:16 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-28 14:52 +0100
Re: absence of max jadill33@gmail.com - 2016-11-28 09:41 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 11:04 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 18:02 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-27 20:52 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 20:31 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 22:09 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-27 14:14 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 23:02 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-27 23:26 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 23:43 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-27 23:46 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-28 12:56 +0100
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-27 16:21 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-28 10:10 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Prince <tprince@computer.org> - 2016-11-27 07:40 -0500
absence of max asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-11-27 08:46 -0800
Re: absence of max fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 09:18 -0800
Re: absence of max asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-11-27 09:22 -0800
Re: absence of max fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 09:27 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 17:33 +0000
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 17:51 +0000
Re: absence of max Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-11-30 13:15 -0500
Re: absence of max "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 12:33 +0800
Page 25 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 23 24 [25] 26 27 … 29 Next page →
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-11 23:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2kmcg$2ge$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #98902 |
On 11/12/16 21:11, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 12/11/2016 1:01 PM, James R. Kuyper wrote: >> On 12/11/2016 10:02 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 10/12/16 04:33, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 12/9/2016 11:10 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>> On 09/12/16 15:40, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>> On 12/9/2016 3:42 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>>>> On 09/12/16 03:32, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ANSI prototypes came out of that so that you didn't need the >>>>>>>> function >>>>>>>> defined before you called it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That isn't what prototypes are for. That's what declarations are for. >>>>>> >>>>>> And what is an ANSI prototype? Is it not a declaration? >>>>> >>>>> Yes. All prototypes are declarations, but not all declarations are >>>>> prototypes. A declaration allows you to write code to call a function >>>>> even though the compiler has not seen the definition. Thus: >> ... >>> Rather, I was arguing against your claim, quoted above and repeated >>> here. You said: "ANSI prototypes came out of that so that you didn't >>> need the function defined before you called it". That claim is incorrect. >> >> You're quite right - K&R style declarations allow that too. >> > > No, K&R did not allow for ANSI-style prototypes. That's not what he said. He said that declarations allow the calling of functions before their definition. Do try to learn to read. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-11 18:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2kp6n$p7q$2@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98939 |
On 12/11/2016 6:11 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 11/12/16 21:11, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/11/2016 1:01 PM, James R. Kuyper wrote: >>> On 12/11/2016 10:02 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> On 10/12/16 04:33, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>> On 12/9/2016 11:10 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>>> On 09/12/16 15:40, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/9/2016 3:42 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>>>>> On 09/12/16 03:32, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> ANSI prototypes came out of that so that you didn't need the >>>>>>>>> function >>>>>>>>> defined before you called it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> That isn't what prototypes are for. That's what declarations are >>>>>>>> for. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And what is an ANSI prototype? Is it not a declaration? >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes. All prototypes are declarations, but not all declarations are >>>>>> prototypes. A declaration allows you to write code to call a function >>>>>> even though the compiler has not seen the definition. Thus: >>> ... >>>> Rather, I was arguing against your claim, quoted above and repeated >>>> here. You said: "ANSI prototypes came out of that so that you didn't >>>> need the function defined before you called it". That claim is >>>> incorrect. >>> >>> You're quite right - K&R style declarations allow that too. >>> >> >> No, K&R did not allow for ANSI-style prototypes. > > That's not what he said. He said that declarations allow the calling of > functions before their definition. Do try to learn to read. > K&R allowed most functions to be called, even those functions being declared or defined beforehand. And no, that is not what he said. Do try to correct your reading comprehension problem. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 00:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2kpq3$19l$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #98946 |
On 11/12/16 23:59, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 12/11/2016 6:11 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 11/12/16 21:11, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 12/11/2016 1:01 PM, James R. Kuyper wrote: >>>> On 12/11/2016 10:02 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>> On 10/12/16 04:33, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>> On 12/9/2016 11:10 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>>>> On 09/12/16 15:40, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/9/2016 3:42 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 09/12/16 03:32, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> ANSI prototypes came out of that so that you didn't need the >>>>>>>>>> function >>>>>>>>>> defined before you called it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> That isn't what prototypes are for. That's what declarations are >>>>>>>>> for. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And what is an ANSI prototype? Is it not a declaration? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Yes. All prototypes are declarations, but not all declarations are >>>>>>> prototypes. A declaration allows you to write code to call a function >>>>>>> even though the compiler has not seen the definition. Thus: >>>> ... >>>>> Rather, I was arguing against your claim, quoted above and repeated >>>>> here. You said: "ANSI prototypes came out of that so that you didn't >>>>> need the function defined before you called it". That claim is >>>>> incorrect. >>>> >>>> You're quite right - K&R style declarations allow that too. >>>> >>> >>> No, K&R did not allow for ANSI-style prototypes. >> >> That's not what he said. He said that declarations allow the calling of >> functions before their definition. Do try to learn to read. >> > > K&R allowed most functions to be called, even those functions being > declared or defined beforehand. Indeed. Prototypes were not, in fact, required for this to happen. Are we supposed to interpret this as "Jerry Stuckle, after calling everybody an idiot for disagreeing with him, now admits he's wrong and will call everybody an idiot in a day or two for missing this admission that actually they weren't idiots after all"? <nonsense snipped> -- 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 | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-11 20:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2l029$niq$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98950 |
On 12/11/2016 7:09 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 11/12/16 23:59, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/11/2016 6:11 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 11/12/16 21:11, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 12/11/2016 1:01 PM, James R. Kuyper wrote: >>>>> On 12/11/2016 10:02 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>>> On 10/12/16 04:33, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/9/2016 11:10 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>>>>> On 09/12/16 15:40, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 12/9/2016 3:42 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 09/12/16 03:32, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> ANSI prototypes came out of that so that you didn't need the >>>>>>>>>>> function >>>>>>>>>>> defined before you called it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> That isn't what prototypes are for. That's what declarations are >>>>>>>>>> for. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And what is an ANSI prototype? Is it not a declaration? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Yes. All prototypes are declarations, but not all declarations are >>>>>>>> prototypes. A declaration allows you to write code to call a >>>>>>>> function >>>>>>>> even though the compiler has not seen the definition. Thus: >>>>> ... >>>>>> Rather, I was arguing against your claim, quoted above and repeated >>>>>> here. You said: "ANSI prototypes came out of that so that you didn't >>>>>> need the function defined before you called it". That claim is >>>>>> incorrect. >>>>> >>>>> You're quite right - K&R style declarations allow that too. >>>>> >>>> >>>> No, K&R did not allow for ANSI-style prototypes. >>> >>> That's not what he said. He said that declarations allow the calling of >>> functions before their definition. Do try to learn to read. >>> >> >> K&R allowed most functions to be called, even those functions being >> declared or defined beforehand. > > Indeed. Prototypes were not, in fact, required for this to happen. Are > we supposed to interpret this as "Jerry Stuckle, after calling everybody > an idiot for disagreeing with him, now admits he's wrong and will call > everybody an idiot in a day or two for missing this admission that > actually they weren't idiots after all"? > > <nonsense snipped> > No, I'm calling YOU and idiot because your head is so far up your arse that you can see your tonsils. You have no idea what you are talking about - as usual for you. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 08:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2lljh$3hm$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #98965 |
On 12/12/16 01:56, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 12/11/2016 7:09 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 11/12/16 23:59, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 12/11/2016 6:11 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: <snip> >>> K&R allowed most functions to be called, even those functions being >>> declared or defined beforehand. >> >> Indeed. Prototypes were not, in fact, required for this to happen. Are >> we supposed to interpret this as "Jerry Stuckle, after calling everybody >> an idiot for disagreeing with him, now admits he's wrong and will call >> everybody an idiot in a day or two for missing this admission that >> actually they weren't idiots after all"? > > No, I'm calling YOU and idiot because your head is so far up your arse > that you can see your tonsils. You have no idea what you are talking > about - as usual for you. Ah, you're still in Stage 1: everybody's an idiot because you are convinced you are right. Thanks. Stage 2 (where everybody's an idiot for not noticing when you said ages ago, very quietly, that you were wrong) can't be far away. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 09:50 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2mddh$kch$3@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98996 |
On 12/12/2016 3:04 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 12/12/16 01:56, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/11/2016 7:09 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 11/12/16 23:59, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 12/11/2016 6:11 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > <snip> >>>> K&R allowed most functions to be called, even those functions being >>>> declared or defined beforehand. >>> >>> Indeed. Prototypes were not, in fact, required for this to happen. Are >>> we supposed to interpret this as "Jerry Stuckle, after calling everybody >>> an idiot for disagreeing with him, now admits he's wrong and will call >>> everybody an idiot in a day or two for missing this admission that >>> actually they weren't idiots after all"? >> >> No, I'm calling YOU and idiot because your head is so far up your arse >> that you can see your tonsils. You have no idea what you are talking >> about - as usual for you. > > Ah, you're still in Stage 1: everybody's an idiot because you are > convinced you are right. Thanks. Stage 2 (where everybody's an idiot for > not noticing when you said ages ago, very quietly, that you were wrong) > can't be far away. > Nope, you're an idiot because you're an idiot. As you have repeatedly proven. The truth is not always pretty. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jameskuyper@verizon.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-11 16:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1386f787-726d-4e98-af11-4a2e5b37c7c8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #98902 |
On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 4:12:04 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 12/11/2016 1:01 PM, James R. Kuyper wrote:
> > On 12/11/2016 10:02 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
...
> >> Rather, I was arguing against your claim, quoted above and repeated
> >> here. You said: "ANSI prototypes came out of that so that you didn't
> >> need the function defined before you called it". That claim is incorrect.
> >
> > You're quite right - K&R style declarations allow that too.
> >
>
> No, K&R did not allow for ANSI-style prototypes. The only declaration
> it allowed was for the return type of the function.
Yes, and K&R style function declarations share one feature in common with declarations written as function prototypes: both of them would allow you to call a function without having defined it yet.
Of course, in K&R C, if a function returned an 'int' value, you could call it
even without having a declaration in scope. If it didn't return an 'int', you
could call it anyway, at the cost of giving your program undefined behavior
because the compiler would assume that it did return 'int'. However, if you
wanted to have defined behavior for a function that returned any type other
than 'int', a K&R style function declaration was sufficient to allow that; a
function definition was not needed, and neither was a function prototype.
That's still true in modern C.
Therefore, while there were many good reasons why function prototypes are
preferable to K&R style function declarations, enabling you to call a function
before you've defined it is NOT one of those reasons.
> > However, while he's been less than clear about it (this is Jerry after
> > all - he doesn't know the correct definitions of many of the words he
> > uses, such as declaration), I think what he was actually talking about
> > may have been that, prior to ANSI prototypes, you could get argument
> > count and argument type validity checks with some compilers, but only if
> > you defined the called routine prior to the calling routine, in the same
> > translation unit.
> >
>
> That is correct. And back in 1985, few people called them
> "declarations". That term did not come into common usage until ANSI
K&R did. My teacher did. My boss did. That was good enough for me to use it. I
would think that the first one would be more than sufficient for you, as well.\
However, my citation of K&R's use of the term does not seem to have attracted
any attention from you. You haven't even bothered to claim that my citation was
wrong, or that I misunderstood it. Not insulting me about such things is very
out-of-character for you - did you even notice my citation?
> prototypes became popular. Then the term was used to differentiate
> ANSI-style from K&R (pre-ANSI-style) code.
No, the term "declaration" was NEVER meant to differentiate function prototypes
from K&R-style function declarations, because K&R style function declarations
are still supported, and are still called function declarations, the same way
that K&R originally referred to them.
> > While such diagnostics were not mandatory, in that situation there would
> > be enough information available to allow such diagnostics. If Jerry had
> > only claimed that some compilers did indeed produce warnings for such
> > mis-matches, I might have believed him. I even have vague memories of
> > seeing such warnings around that time, though I can't be sure whether
> > they are from before or after I started using compilers that supported
> > prototypes.
>
> I never said ALL compilers did it - just some. ...
No one has argued that you did. However, many people noted, correctly, that you claimed that most of them did; and there's no evidence supporting that claim.
You also claimed that using function definitions in this manner would cause
conversions of arguments to the type of the corresponding parameter,
conversions other than the ones that the standard calls "default argument
conversions" (which are completely independent of the parameter type). Since
the behavior is undefined in any situation where such a conversion is needed,
performing such a conversion would not render an implementation non-conforming,
so it is possible, though you've not provided sufficient supporting evidence
for that claim. However, doing so automatically without any warning messages
would encourage people to write code that relied upon such conversions, code
that would therefore break if translated by an implementation that didn't
implement that feature - which is why many people would consider that a
mis-feature.
> ... But that has been
> ignored by the idiots who are arguing from a position of ignorance, just
> to argue.
We're arguing because you've made incorrect statements and continue to make
incorrect use of the relevant terminology. In particular, it would appear that
you still have not accepted that "function declaration" applies both to
function prototypes and K&R-style function declarations. Let's take this step
by step, and see whether there are any individual steps in the following that
you could agree with. Do you agree that
double total();
is parsed according to the K&R grammar as a declaration?
Section 8 of K&R, 1st edition, says:
> declaration:
> decl-specifiers delcarator-list_opt ;
>
> decl-specifiers:
> type-specifier decl-specifiers_opt
> sc-specifier decl-specifiers_opt
8.2 says that 'double' is a type-specifier
8.3 says
> declarator-list:
> init-declarator
> init-declarator , declarator-list
>
> init-declarator:
> declarator initializer_opt
>
> declarator:
> identifier
> ...
> declarator()
Therefore, given "double total();", "double" is parsed as type-specifier, and therefore as a complete 1-element set of decl-specifiers. "total" is parsed as an identifier, and therefore as a declarator. "total()" therefore also parses as a declarator, and also as as an init-declarator that is missing the optional initializer. It therefore also qualifies as a complete 1-element declarator-list. The combination of decl-specifiers and a declarator-list parses as a declaration. So can we at least agree that it is a declaration, even if you don't want to call it a function declaration?
8.4 says that in a declaration of the form
> T D1
> where T is a type-specifier (like int, etc) and D1 is a declator.
...
> If D1 has the form
> D()
>
> then the contained identifier has the 8.4 says that in a declaration of the form
" T D1
where T is a type-specifier (like int, etc) and D1 is a declator."
" If D1 has the form
D()
then the contained identifier has the type ".. . function returning T."
type ".. . function returning T."
This declaration has the form T D1, where T is the type-specifier "double", and D1 is the declarator "total()". The declarator has the form D(), where D is "total". Therefore, according to 8.4, this declaration declares total as an identifier identifying a function returning double.
Is there anything incorrect in applying the adjective "function" to the noun "declaration" to describe a declaration that declares an identifier as identifying a function? If so, what? Even if you didn't use the term, K&R did, and so did several people I knew. Given that function prototypes didn't even exist yet, if at that time someone had talked with you about function declarations, would you really have interpreted that phrase as either meaningless, or as referring to something other than the declaration of an identifier identifying a function?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-11 19:38 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <bef31ac0-6ff8-2092-8d12-14e529e42553@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #98954 |
On 12/11/2016 07:18 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: ... >> T D1 >> where T is a type-specifier (like int, etc) and D1 is a declator. > ... >> If D1 has the form >> D() >> >> then the contained identifier has the 8.4 says that in a declaration of the form The next few lines should have been indented to match the preceding ones - all of those lines are quoted from K&R C, 1st edition: > > " T D1 > where T is a type-specifier (like int, etc) and D1 is a declator." > > " If D1 has the form > D() > > then the contained identifier has the type ".. . function returning T." And for some reason there's an echo, too: > type ".. . function returning T." Sorry for the typos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-11 21:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2l0hk$pfi$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98954 |
On 12/11/2016 7:18 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: > On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 4:12:04 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/11/2016 1:01 PM, James R. Kuyper wrote: >>> On 12/11/2016 10:02 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > ... >>>> Rather, I was arguing against your claim, quoted above and repeated >>>> here. You said: "ANSI prototypes came out of that so that you didn't >>>> need the function defined before you called it". That claim is incorrect. >>> >>> You're quite right - K&R style declarations allow that too. >>> >> >> No, K&R did not allow for ANSI-style prototypes. The only declaration >> it allowed was for the return type of the function. > > Yes, and K&R style function declarations share one feature in common with declarations written as function prototypes: both of them would allow you to call a function without having defined it yet. > > Of course, in K&R C, if a function returned an 'int' value, you could call it > even without having a declaration in scope. If it didn't return an 'int', you > could call it anyway, at the cost of giving your program undefined behavior > because the compiler would assume that it did return 'int'. However, if you > wanted to have defined behavior for a function that returned any type other > than 'int', a K&R style function declaration was sufficient to allow that; a > function definition was not needed, and neither was a function prototype. > That's still true in modern C. > > Therefore, while there were many good reasons why function prototypes are > preferable to K&R style function declarations, enabling you to call a function > before you've defined it is NOT one of those reasons. > And those same reasons were why programmers structured code in reverse order of being called. Some compilers would check the type and number of parameters based on the K&R-style definition. >>> However, while he's been less than clear about it (this is Jerry after >>> all - he doesn't know the correct definitions of many of the words he >>> uses, such as declaration), I think what he was actually talking about >>> may have been that, prior to ANSI prototypes, you could get argument >>> count and argument type validity checks with some compilers, but only if >>> you defined the called routine prior to the calling routine, in the same >>> translation unit. >>> >> >> That is correct. And back in 1985, few people called them >> "declarations". That term did not come into common usage until ANSI > > K&R did. My teacher did. My boss did. That was good enough for me to use it. I > would think that the first one would be more than sufficient for you, as well.\ > However, my citation of K&R's use of the term does not seem to have attracted > any attention from you. You haven't even bothered to claim that my citation was > wrong, or that I misunderstood it. Not insulting me about such things is very > out-of-character for you - did you even notice my citation? > That's fine for you. But your teacher and boss are not good enough for me. I'm going by what the general programming community called them. >> prototypes became popular. Then the term was used to differentiate >> ANSI-style from K&R (pre-ANSI-style) code. > > No, the term "declaration" was NEVER meant to differentiate function prototypes > from K&R-style function declarations, because K&R style function declarations > are still supported, and are still called function declarations, the same way > that K&R originally referred to them. > You didn't read what I said, obviously. It doesn't matter what it was MEANT to do. That's how the majority of programmers used it at the time. >>> While such diagnostics were not mandatory, in that situation there would >>> be enough information available to allow such diagnostics. If Jerry had >>> only claimed that some compilers did indeed produce warnings for such >>> mis-matches, I might have believed him. I even have vague memories of >>> seeing such warnings around that time, though I can't be sure whether >>> they are from before or after I started using compilers that supported >>> prototypes. >> >> I never said ALL compilers did it - just some. ... > > No one has argued that you did. However, many people noted, correctly, that you claimed that most of them did; and there's no evidence supporting that claim. > You don't read very well, either. Several people, including Richard and Ben, have claimed exactly that. > You also claimed that using function definitions in this manner would cause > conversions of arguments to the type of the corresponding parameter, > conversions other than the ones that the standard calls "default argument > conversions" (which are completely independent of the parameter type). Since > the behavior is undefined in any situation where such a conversion is needed, > performing such a conversion would not render an implementation non-conforming, > so it is possible, though you've not provided sufficient supporting evidence > for that claim. However, doing so automatically without any warning messages > would encourage people to write code that relied upon such conversions, code > that would therefore break if translated by an implementation that didn't > implement that feature - which is why many people would consider that a > mis-feature. > That is true. Some compilers did do that. This was before ANSI-type declarations were developed, and helped with a number of problems. >> ... But that has been >> ignored by the idiots who are arguing from a position of ignorance, just >> to argue. > > We're arguing because you've made incorrect statements and continue to make > incorrect use of the relevant terminology. In particular, it would appear that > you still have not accepted that "function declaration" applies both to > function prototypes and K&R-style function declarations. Let's take this step > by step, and see whether there are any individual steps in the following that > you could agree with. Do you agree that > No, you're arguing because you like to argue. You are claiming you know EVERY compiler at the time, and NONE of them did that. > double total(); > > is parsed according to the K&R grammar as a declaration? > > Section 8 of K&R, 1st edition, says: >> declaration: >> decl-specifiers delcarator-list_opt ; >> >> decl-specifiers: >> type-specifier decl-specifiers_opt >> sc-specifier decl-specifiers_opt > > 8.2 says that 'double' is a type-specifier > > 8.3 says >> declarator-list: >> init-declarator >> init-declarator , declarator-list >> >> init-declarator: >> declarator initializer_opt >> >> declarator: >> identifier >> ... >> declarator() > > Therefore, given "double total();", "double" is parsed as type-specifier, and therefore as a complete 1-element set of decl-specifiers. "total" is parsed as an identifier, and therefore as a declarator. "total()" therefore also parses as a declarator, and also as as an init-declarator that is missing the optional initializer. It therefore also qualifies as a complete 1-element declarator-list. The combination of decl-specifiers and a declarator-list parses as a declaration. So can we at least agree that it is a declaration, even if you don't want to call it a function declaration? > > 8.4 says that in a declaration of the form >> T D1 >> where T is a type-specifier (like int, etc) and D1 is a declator. > ... >> If D1 has the form >> D() >> >> then the contained identifier has the 8.4 says that in a declaration of the form > > " T D1 > where T is a type-specifier (like int, etc) and D1 is a declator." > > " If D1 has the form > D() > > then the contained identifier has the type ".. . function returning T." > > type ".. . function returning T." > > This declaration has the form T D1, where T is the type-specifier "double", and D1 is the declarator "total()". The declarator has the form D(), where D is "total". Therefore, according to 8.4, this declaration declares total as an identifier identifying a function returning double. > > Is there anything incorrect in applying the adjective "function" to the noun "declaration" to describe a declaration that declares an identifier as identifying a function? If so, what? Even if you didn't use the term, K&R did, and so did several people I knew. Given that function prototypes didn't even exist yet, if at that time someone had talked with you about function declarations, would you really have interpreted that phrase as either meaningless, or as referring to something other than the declaration of an identifier identifying a function? > As I said - I never made any claims about what K&R said. All I discussed was what the common usage was at the time. So all of this is more of your typical bullshit - because you're arguing about something I never said - just to argue. IOW, just another idiot troll. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 03:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87bmwhsttr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #98967 |
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes: > On 12/11/2016 7:18 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: <snip> >> Therefore, while there were many good reasons why function prototypes are >> preferable to K&R style function declarations, enabling you to call a function >> before you've defined it is NOT one of those reasons. > > And those same reasons were why programmers structured code in reverse > order of being called. Some compilers would check the type and number > of parameters based on the K&R-style definition. Oh, interesting. Are you retracting the claim about converting the arguments and replacing with just checking the type and number? And for the sake of others who might not know, programmers did not structure their K&R-style code to put definitions before calls (other than where that happened anyway). They didn't do that because they used compilers that did not do anything specific in that case -- compilers like the Unix C compiler, the BSD C compiler, Microsoft's v3 C compiler, the Lattice C compiler, the Perq PNX C compiler, the portable C compiler by Johnson, the Borland C compiler and so on and so on... <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 09:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2mdhh$kch$4@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98982 |
On 12/11/2016 10:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes: > >> On 12/11/2016 7:18 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: > <snip> >>> Therefore, while there were many good reasons why function prototypes are >>> preferable to K&R style function declarations, enabling you to call a function >>> before you've defined it is NOT one of those reasons. >> >> And those same reasons were why programmers structured code in reverse >> order of being called. Some compilers would check the type and number >> of parameters based on the K&R-style definition. > > Oh, interesting. Are you retracting the claim about converting the > arguments and replacing with just checking the type and number? > Type and number is the start. The compiler can't convert unless it knows what type to convert to. > And for the sake of others who might not know, programmers did not > structure their K&R-style code to put definitions before calls (other > than where that happened anyway). They didn't do that because they used > compilers that did not do anything specific in that case -- compilers > like the Unix C compiler, the BSD C compiler, Microsoft's v3 C compiler, > the Lattice C compiler, the Perq PNX C compiler, the portable C compiler > by Johnson, the Borland C compiler and so on and so on... > > <snip> > ROFLMAO! YOU didn't structure your code that way (from your comments, you weren't even programming at that time). But good programmers did. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 23:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87zik0ohpw.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #99054 |
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes: > On 12/11/2016 10:35 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes: >> >>> On 12/11/2016 7:18 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >> <snip> >>>> Therefore, while there were many good reasons why function prototypes are >>>> preferable to K&R style function declarations, enabling you to call a function >>>> before you've defined it is NOT one of those reasons. >>> >>> And those same reasons were why programmers structured code in reverse >>> order of being called. Some compilers would check the type and number >>> of parameters based on the K&R-style definition. >> >> Oh, interesting. Are you retracting the claim about converting the >> arguments and replacing with just checking the type and number? > > Type and number is the start. The compiler can't convert unless it > knows what type to convert to. A curious non-answer. You don't /have/ to say if you still stand by the claim, but it's interesting you didn't take this opportunity. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 17:35 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <eb6nnrFm1p6U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #98967 |
On 12/12/16 03:04 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 12/11/2016 7:18 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >> On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 4:12:04 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> >>> That is correct. And back in 1985, few people called them >>> "declarations". That term did not come into common usage until ANSI >> >> K&R did. My teacher did. My boss did. That was good enough for me to use it. I >> would think that the first one would be more than sufficient for you, as well.\ >> However, my citation of K&R's use of the term does not seem to have attracted >> any attention from you. You haven't even bothered to claim that my citation was >> wrong, or that I misunderstood it. Not insulting me about such things is very >> out-of-character for you - did you even notice my citation? >> > > That's fine for you. But your teacher and boss are not good enough for > me. I'm going by what the general programming community called them. I see you conveniently excluded K&R from that little list. You also ignored the correction to your claimed publication date for K&R, so I can't help but wonder if you know what K&R is. -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 09:54 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2mdl6$kch$5@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98988 |
On 12/11/2016 11:35 PM, Ian Collins wrote: > On 12/12/16 03:04 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/11/2016 7:18 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >>> On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 4:12:04 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> >>>> That is correct. And back in 1985, few people called them >>>> "declarations". That term did not come into common usage until ANSI >>> >>> K&R did. My teacher did. My boss did. That was good enough for me to >>> use it. I >>> would think that the first one would be more than sufficient for you, >>> as well.\ >>> However, my citation of K&R's use of the term does not seem to have >>> attracted >>> any attention from you. You haven't even bothered to claim that my >>> citation was >>> wrong, or that I misunderstood it. Not insulting me about such things >>> is very >>> out-of-character for you - did you even notice my citation? >>> >> >> That's fine for you. But your teacher and boss are not good enough for >> me. I'm going by what the general programming community called them. > > I see you conveniently excluded K&R from that little list. > I said I'm going by what the general programming community called them. Nothing more, nothing less. > You also ignored the correction to your claimed publication date for > K&R, so I can't help but wonder if you know what K&R is. > Yes, I ignored a stoopid comment by a well-known troll. I got my start in C with K&R. But trivial shit like the exact year of publication is important only to trolls bent on proving someone wrong instead of discovering the truth. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 08:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2lmbg$5ou$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #98967 |
On 12/12/16 02:04, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 12/11/2016 7:18 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >> On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 4:12:04 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle >> wrote: >>> On 12/11/2016 1:01 PM, James R. Kuyper wrote: >>>> On 12/11/2016 10:02 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> ... >>>>> Rather, I was arguing against your claim, quoted above and >>>>> repeated here. You said: "ANSI prototypes came out of that so >>>>> that you didn't need the function defined before you called >>>>> it". That claim is incorrect. <snip> >>>> However, while he's been less than clear about it (this is >>>> Jerry after all - he doesn't know the correct definitions of >>>> many of the words he uses, such as declaration), I think what >>>> he was actually talking about may have been that, prior to ANSI >>>> prototypes, you could get argument count and argument type >>>> validity checks with some compilers, but only if you defined >>>> the called routine prior to the calling routine, in the same >>>> translation unit. >>> >>> That is correct. And back in 1985, few people called them >>> "declarations". That term did not come into common usage until >>> ANSI >> >> K&R did. My teacher did. My boss did. That was good enough for me >> to use it. I would think that the first one would be more than >> sufficient for you, as well.\ However, my citation of K&R's use of >> the term does not seem to have attracted any attention from you. >> You haven't even bothered to claim that my citation was wrong, or >> that I misunderstood it. Not insulting me about such things is >> very out-of-character for you - did you even notice my citation? >> > > That's fine for you. But your teacher and boss are not good enough > for me. K&R is also not good enough for you? > I'm going by what the general programming community called > them. And K&R had no influence on that community? Really? >>> prototypes became popular. Then the term was used to >>> differentiate ANSI-style from K&R (pre-ANSI-style) code. >> >> No, the term "declaration" was NEVER meant to differentiate >> function prototypes from K&R-style function declarations, because >> K&R style function declarations are still supported, and are still >> called function declarations, the same way that K&R originally >> referred to them. >> > > You didn't read what I said, obviously. But he very obviously /did/ read what you said. Did /you/? > It doesn't matter what it > was MEANT to do. That's how the majority of programmers used it at > the time. I find it very unlikely that anyone is in a position to know the precise way in which terms such as "declaration" were being used by the majority of programmers 30 years ago. There were simply too many programmers, even then, for anyone to be able to collate that information other than by random sampling of a very small group of interacting subjects (who, by that very interaction, are likely to have a common usage for a term, whether or not that common usage is shared by other groups). >>>> While such diagnostics were not mandatory, in that situation >>>> there would be enough information available to allow such >>>> diagnostics. If Jerry had only claimed that some compilers did >>>> indeed produce warnings for such mis-matches, I might have >>>> believed him. I even have vague memories of seeing such >>>> warnings around that time, though I can't be sure whether they >>>> are from before or after I started using compilers that >>>> supported prototypes. >>> >>> I never said ALL compilers did it - just some. ... >> >> No one has argued that you did. However, many people noted, >> correctly, that you claimed that most of them did; and there's no >> evidence supporting that claim. > > You don't read very well, either. Several people, including Richard > and Ben, have claimed exactly that. I'm reasonably sure that's not true. I am not in the habit of extending people's debating positions. But if it /is/ true, it's easily proved - just the message ID will do (or the data and time of posting, if it's in this thread, which seems likely if it exists). Prediction: no such proof will be forthcoming. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 13:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87oa0hqp1j.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #98998 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > On 12/12/16 02:04, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/11/2016 7:18 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >>> On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 4:12:04 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle >>> wrote: <snip> >>>> I never said ALL compilers did it - just some. ... >>> >>> No one has argued that you did. However, many people noted, >>> correctly, that you claimed that most of them did; and there's no >>> evidence supporting that claim. >> >> You don't read very well, either. Several people, including Richard >> and Ben, have claimed exactly that. > > I'm reasonably sure that's not true. It's true of me. I said it because Jerry said "every one of them" when asked which compilers do the bizarre conversions he claimed. He now says he meant only "every compilers I used", but "every one of them" is an odd way of saying that particularly because, as a C expert, he should have known that the compilers that did were in a tiny minority (which I suspect is actually none of them). If you knew that all the commonly used C compilers of the time did no do this, you would have to point it out as an oddity, but the discussion leading up to that point included Jerry pontificating about what C programmers had to do because C had no function declarations. This, coupled with his denying that a compiler could do /any/ argument conversions without a definition in scope makes it perfectly clear that he was just miss-remembering how K&R C worked. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 13:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2m7sn$vfp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #99037 |
On 12/12/16 13:01, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > >> On 12/12/16 02:04, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 12/11/2016 7:18 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >>>> On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 4:12:04 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle >>>> wrote: > <snip> >>>>> I never said ALL compilers did it - just some. ... >>>> >>>> No one has argued that you did. However, many people noted, >>>> correctly, that you claimed that most of them did; and there's no >>>> evidence supporting that claim. >>> >>> You don't read very well, either. Several people, including Richard >>> and Ben, have claimed exactly that. >> >> I'm reasonably sure that's not true. > > It's true of me. Thank you for the correction. > I said it because Jerry said "every one of them" when > asked which compilers do the bizarre conversions he claimed. Well, I must have overlooked his saying that, for which I apologise. <snip> -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 10:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2me88$nse$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98998 |
On 12/12/2016 3:17 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 12/12/16 02:04, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/11/2016 7:18 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >>> On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 4:12:04 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle >>> wrote: >>>> On 12/11/2016 1:01 PM, James R. Kuyper wrote: >>>>> On 12/11/2016 10:02 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> ... >>>>>> Rather, I was arguing against your claim, quoted above and >>>>>> repeated here. You said: "ANSI prototypes came out of that so >>>>>> that you didn't need the function defined before you called >>>>>> it". That claim is incorrect. > > <snip> > >>>>> However, while he's been less than clear about it (this is >>>>> Jerry after all - he doesn't know the correct definitions of >>>>> many of the words he uses, such as declaration), I think what >>>>> he was actually talking about may have been that, prior to ANSI >>>>> prototypes, you could get argument count and argument type >>>>> validity checks with some compilers, but only if you defined >>>>> the called routine prior to the calling routine, in the same >>>>> translation unit. >>>> >>>> That is correct. And back in 1985, few people called them >>>> "declarations". That term did not come into common usage until >>>> ANSI >>> >>> K&R did. My teacher did. My boss did. That was good enough for me >>> to use it. I would think that the first one would be more than >>> sufficient for you, as well.\ However, my citation of K&R's use of >>> the term does not seem to have attracted any attention from you. >>> You haven't even bothered to claim that my citation was wrong, or >>> that I misunderstood it. Not insulting me about such things is >>> very out-of-character for you - did you even notice my citation? >>> >> >> That's fine for you. But your teacher and boss are not good enough >> for me. > > K&R is also not good enough for you? > I'm going by what the general programming community called them. >> I'm going by what the general programming community called >> them. > > And K&R had no influence on that community? Really? > I'm going by what the general programming community called them. >>>> prototypes became popular. Then the term was used to >>>> differentiate ANSI-style from K&R (pre-ANSI-style) code. >>> >>> No, the term "declaration" was NEVER meant to differentiate >>> function prototypes from K&R-style function declarations, because >>> K&R style function declarations are still supported, and are still >>> called function declarations, the same way that K&R originally >>> referred to them. >>> >> >> You didn't read what I said, obviously. > > But he very obviously /did/ read what you said. Did /you/? > Obviously not. But your reading comprehension problem doesn't allow you to understand that. >> It doesn't matter what it >> was MEANT to do. That's how the majority of programmers used it at >> the time. > > I find it very unlikely that anyone is in a position to know the precise > way in which terms such as "declaration" were being used by the majority > of programmers 30 years ago. There were simply too many programmers, > even then, for anyone to be able to collate that information other than > by random sampling of a very small group of interacting subjects (who, > by that very interaction, are likely to have a common usage for a term, > whether or not that common usage is shared by other groups). > Usenet had been active for several years already, and there were a number of C programmers on usenet. Plus there was CompuServe and other networks. While usenet was still pretty much US-centric, there were a lot of programmers on it. And some of the other networks were international. And all used similar terminologies. And you claim your boss and you are in a better position to say what was "standard" than the thousands of programmers in these networks? ROFLAMO! >>>>> While such diagnostics were not mandatory, in that situation >>>>> there would be enough information available to allow such >>>>> diagnostics. If Jerry had only claimed that some compilers did >>>>> indeed produce warnings for such mis-matches, I might have >>>>> believed him. I even have vague memories of seeing such >>>>> warnings around that time, though I can't be sure whether they >>>>> are from before or after I started using compilers that >>>>> supported prototypes. >>>> >>>> I never said ALL compilers did it - just some. ... >>> >>> No one has argued that you did. However, many people noted, >>> correctly, that you claimed that most of them did; and there's no >>> evidence supporting that claim. >> >> You don't read very well, either. Several people, including Richard >> and Ben, have claimed exactly that. > > I'm reasonably sure that's not true. I am not in the habit of extending > people's debating positions. But if it /is/ true, it's easily proved - > just the message ID will do (or the data and time of posting, if it's in > this thread, which seems likely if it exists). > > Prediction: no such proof will be forthcoming. > Read the thread. I'm not going to go back though the messages to satisfy your reading comprehension problems. No, I'm not wasting my time for the troll. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 15:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2mf6v$rn0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #99058 |
On 12/12/16 15:05, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 12/12/2016 3:17 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 12/12/16 02:04, Jerry Stuckle wrote: <snip> >>> You didn't read what I said, obviously. >> >> But [James] very obviously /did/ read what you said. Did /you/? >> > > Obviously not. Quite so. <snip> >>>>>> While such diagnostics were not mandatory, in that situation >>>>>> there would be enough information available to allow such >>>>>> diagnostics. If Jerry had only claimed that some compilers did >>>>>> indeed produce warnings for such mis-matches, I might have >>>>>> believed him. I even have vague memories of seeing such >>>>>> warnings around that time, though I can't be sure whether they >>>>>> are from before or after I started using compilers that >>>>>> supported prototypes. >>>>> >>>>> I never said ALL compilers did it - just some. ... >>>> >>>> No one has argued that you did. However, many people noted, >>>> correctly, that you claimed that most of them did; and there's no >>>> evidence supporting that claim. >>> >>> You don't read very well, either. Several people, including Richard >>> and Ben, have claimed exactly that. >> >> I'm reasonably sure that's not true. I am not in the habit of extending >> people's debating positions. But if it /is/ true, it's easily proved - >> just the message ID will do (or the data and time of posting, if it's in >> this thread, which seems likely if it exists). >> >> Prediction: no such proof will be forthcoming. >> > > Read the thread. I'm not going to go back though the messages to > satisfy your reading comprehension problems. Read the thread. Ben has already confirmed that he did in fact point out that you had made the claim about ALL compilers, despite your claim that "I never said ALL compilers did it". I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but Ben wasn't, and Ben was right not to. Okay. > No, I'm not wasting my time for the troll. Yes, I'm well aware of your standard excuse for not supporting your claims. It may well be the case by now that many people interpret your "I'm not wasting my time for the troll" and "you have reading comprehension problems" as meaning "damn, I've been caught out again". -- 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 | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 16:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o31l2s$eu$5@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #99064 |
On 12/12/2016 10:21 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 12/12/16 15:05, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/12/2016 3:17 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 12/12/16 02:04, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > > <snip> > >>>> You didn't read what I said, obviously. >>> >>> But [James] very obviously /did/ read what you said. Did /you/? >>> >> >> Obviously not. > > Quite so. > > <snip> > >>>>>>> While such diagnostics were not mandatory, in that situation >>>>>>> there would be enough information available to allow such >>>>>>> diagnostics. If Jerry had only claimed that some compilers did >>>>>>> indeed produce warnings for such mis-matches, I might have >>>>>>> believed him. I even have vague memories of seeing such >>>>>>> warnings around that time, though I can't be sure whether they >>>>>>> are from before or after I started using compilers that >>>>>>> supported prototypes. >>>>>> >>>>>> I never said ALL compilers did it - just some. ... >>>>> >>>>> No one has argued that you did. However, many people noted, >>>>> correctly, that you claimed that most of them did; and there's no >>>>> evidence supporting that claim. >>>> >>>> You don't read very well, either. Several people, including Richard >>>> and Ben, have claimed exactly that. >>> >>> I'm reasonably sure that's not true. I am not in the habit of extending >>> people's debating positions. But if it /is/ true, it's easily proved - >>> just the message ID will do (or the data and time of posting, if it's in >>> this thread, which seems likely if it exists). >>> >>> Prediction: no such proof will be forthcoming. >>> >> >> Read the thread. I'm not going to go back though the messages to >> satisfy your reading comprehension problems. > > Read the thread. Ben has already confirmed that he did in fact point out > that you had made the claim about ALL compilers, despite your claim that > "I never said ALL compilers did it". I was giving you the benefit of the > doubt, but Ben wasn't, and Ben was right not to. Okay. > I did read the tread. Ben took the comment out of context - something that trolls are good at. I just placed it back in the correct context. >> No, I'm not wasting my time for the troll. > > Yes, I'm well aware of your standard excuse for not supporting your > claims. It may well be the case by now that many people interpret your > "I'm not wasting my time for the troll" and "you have reading > comprehension problems" as meaning "damn, I've been caught out again". > No, you obviously have a reading comprehension problem and are trolling - yet again. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 25 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 23 24 [25] 26 27 … 29 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web