Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #69302 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Anonymous Shadow <rocket.penguin@riseup.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-09-04 20:46 +0800 |
| Last post | 2015-09-16 01:12 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 108 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? Anonymous Shadow <rocket.penguin@riseup.net> - 2015-09-04 20:46 +0800
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? Anonymous Shadow <rocket.penguin@riseup.net> - 2015-09-04 20:49 +0800
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-09-04 16:19 +0000
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-09-04 10:10 -0400
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 17:07 -0700
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-09 01:57 +0100
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 18:09 -0700
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-09 02:47 +0100
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 19:34 -0700
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-09 12:07 +0100
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-09 13:18 +0200
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-04 07:23 -0700
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2015-09-04 07:45 -0700
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-05 14:59 +0200
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-07 13:26 -0700
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-08 08:51 +0200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-08 13:35 +0200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-08 13:59 +0200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-09-08 12:35 +0000
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-08 17:55 +0200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-08 13:11 -0400
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 10:19 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-09-08 21:31 +0200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-08 20:33 +0100
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-08 22:56 +0200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-09-20 19:31 +0000
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-20 16:09 -0400
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-09-21 18:51 -0500
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-20 21:27 +0100
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-08 22:52 +0200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-08 21:59 +0100
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-09-20 19:31 +0000
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-20 13:54 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 21:28 +0100
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-08 10:56 -0400
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-08 08:33 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 09:12 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 09:18 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 10:15 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 08:38 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 16:50 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-08 21:24 -0400
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 08:45 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 08:54 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-09-11 21:22 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-09-13 06:42 +0000
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-12 23:54 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-09-13 10:41 -0500
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 09:52 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-09-13 20:27 +0000
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-09-14 21:32 -0500
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 09:55 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-14 09:07 +1200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-09-13 14:23 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-14 09:31 +1200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-09-13 14:33 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-14 09:40 +1200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-09-13 15:05 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-14 00:10 +0200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-13 17:16 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-09-14 21:36 -0500
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 14:29 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-13 23:47 +0200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-13 17:55 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-14 10:20 +0200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-14 11:01 +0100
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-14 22:07 +1200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-14 12:41 +0200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-14 03:47 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 04:05 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 04:20 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-14 05:51 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 06:06 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-14 06:26 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-09-14 13:43 +0000
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-14 07:26 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 06:47 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 03:31 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-14 06:40 -0400
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-14 14:27 +0200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-09-14 13:39 +0100
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 05:55 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 05:50 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-14 15:58 +0200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 07:37 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 07:43 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-14 17:21 +0200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-14 08:53 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-14 18:23 +0200
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 10:57 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-17 17:43 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-09-20 20:50 +0000
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-09-20 20:48 +0000
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-14 07:58 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-09-14 21:35 -0500
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-08 23:56 -0700
Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 08:07 -0700
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 17:40 -0700
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-08 17:59 -0700
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-09-04 10:48 -0400
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? Paul N <gw7rib@aol.com> - 2015-09-07 12:48 -0700
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? Anonymous Shadow <rocket.penguin@riseup.net> - 2015-09-12 15:35 +0800
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-12 14:25 -0700
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-09-12 14:53 -0700
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-09-12 18:21 -0400
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-14 11:41 -0700
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-09-16 09:02 +0200
Re: disadvantages of using old parameter syntax? "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2015-09-16 01:12 -0700
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 13:11 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <msn4om$vef$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69921 |
On 09/08/2015 11:55 AM, Noob wrote: > On 08/09/2015 14:35, Kenny McCormack wrote: > >> Point of order: Neither RCH nor BC are "regulars" (or, "regs") in the >> proper sense of the word. False. Just like Kenny, they both post here quite regularly, which is all that's needed to justify labeling all three of them as regulars. > Damn right! No true Scotsman would ever be considered a "reg". I don't know - David Brown posts here pretty regularly - 1467 messages since May 2012, according to Google Groups. There's probably other Scotsmen here - he's just the first one I found with a Google Groups search for "Scottish". -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 10:19 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <1e492794-aad6-4ebe-9264-a617ec62dc37@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #69938 |
On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 1:11:42 PM UTC-4, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 09/08/2015 11:55 AM, Noob wrote:
> > On 08/09/2015 14:35, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> >
> >> Point of order: Neither RCH nor BC are "regulars" (or, "regs") in the
> >> proper sense of the word.
>
> False. Just like Kenny, they both post here quite regularly, which is
> all that's needed to justify labeling all three of them as regulars.
Saavik: "Humor. It is a difficult concept. It is not logical."
Kirk: "We learn by doing."
-----
From a really weird alternate take that I'm so glad they never used
in the final movie, at 0:35:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRYlPifDUBg
> > Damn right! No true Scotsman would ever be considered a "reg".
>
> I don't know - David Brown posts here pretty regularly - 1467 messages
> since May 2012, according to Google Groups. There's probably other
> Scotsmen here - he's just the first one I found with a Google Groups
> search for "Scottish".
> --
> James Kuyper
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Noob <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 21:31 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <msncvf$2er$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69938 |
On 08/09/2015 19:11, James Kuyper wrote: > On 09/08/2015 11:55 AM, Noob wrote: > >> Damn right! No true Scotsman would ever be considered a "reg". > > I don't know - David Brown posts here pretty regularly - 1467 messages > since May 2012, according to Google Groups. There's probably other > Scotsmen here - he's just the first one I found with a Google Groups > search for "Scottish". Thing is, I don't think David is a *true* Scotsman! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 20:33 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <9KGHx.338340$fK1.176833@fx36.am4> |
| In reply to | #69958 |
On 08/09/2015 20:31, Noob wrote: > On 08/09/2015 19:11, James Kuyper wrote: > >> On 09/08/2015 11:55 AM, Noob wrote: >> >>> Damn right! No true Scotsman would ever be considered a "reg". >> >> I don't know - David Brown posts here pretty regularly - 1467 messages >> since May 2012, according to Google Groups. There's probably other >> Scotsmen here - he's just the first one I found with a Google Groups >> search for "Scottish". > > Thing is, I don't think David is a *true* Scotsman! He isn't. A true Scotsman's surname starts with Mac. David's doesn't. QED. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 22:56 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <msnhu7$ndv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69960 |
On 08/09/15 21:33, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 08/09/2015 20:31, Noob wrote: >> On 08/09/2015 19:11, James Kuyper wrote: >> >>> On 09/08/2015 11:55 AM, Noob wrote: >>> >>>> Damn right! No true Scotsman would ever be considered a "reg". >>> >>> I don't know - David Brown posts here pretty regularly - 1467 messages >>> since May 2012, according to Google Groups. There's probably other >>> Scotsmen here - he's just the first one I found with a Google Groups >>> search for "Scottish". >> >> Thing is, I don't think David is a *true* Scotsman! > > He isn't. A true Scotsman's surname starts with Mac. David's doesn't. QED. > My middle name is MacKinnon - does that help? Now I'm off to tune me bagpipes...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 19:31 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <55ff079f.35002921@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #69960 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: > On 08/09/2015 20:31, Noob wrote: > > On 08/09/2015 19:11, James Kuyper wrote: > > > >> On 09/08/2015 11:55 AM, Noob wrote: > >> > >>> Damn right! No true Scotsman would ever be considered a "reg". > >> > >> I don't know - David Brown posts here pretty regularly - 1467 messages > >> since May 2012, according to Google Groups. There's probably other > >> Scotsmen here - he's just the first one I found with a Google Groups > >> search for "Scottish". > > > > Thing is, I don't think David is a *true* Scotsman! > > He isn't. A true Scotsman's surname starts with Mac. David's doesn't. QED. Where _is_ Mark McIntyre? Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 16:09 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <55FF1274.9000402@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #70985 |
On 09/20/2015 03:31 PM, Richard Bos wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: > >> On 08/09/2015 20:31, Noob wrote: >>> On 08/09/2015 19:11, James Kuyper wrote: >>> >>>> On 09/08/2015 11:55 AM, Noob wrote: >>>> >>>>> Damn right! No true Scotsman would ever be considered a "reg". >>>> >>>> I don't know - David Brown posts here pretty regularly - 1467 messages >>>> since May 2012, according to Google Groups. There's probably other >>>> Scotsmen here - he's just the first one I found with a Google Groups >>>> search for "Scottish". >>> >>> Thing is, I don't think David is a *true* Scotsman! >> >> He isn't. A true Scotsman's surname starts with Mac. David's doesn't. QED. > > Where _is_ Mark McIntyre? According to Google Groups, his last contribution to comp.lang.c occurred on 2009-10-22. A general Google search provides too many hits to make it easy to decide which one is "our" Mark McIntyre. Does anyone know something sufficiently personal about him to narrow down the search?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-21 18:51 -0500 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <mtq560$okp$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #70987 |
On 9/20/15 3:09 PM, James Kuyper wrote: > On 09/20/2015 03:31 PM, Richard Bos wrote: >> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: >> >>> On 08/09/2015 20:31, Noob wrote: >>>> On 08/09/2015 19:11, James Kuyper wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 09/08/2015 11:55 AM, Noob wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Damn right! No true Scotsman would ever be considered a "reg". >>>>> >>>>> I don't know - David Brown posts here pretty regularly - 1467 messages >>>>> since May 2012, according to Google Groups. There's probably other >>>>> Scotsmen here - he's just the first one I found with a Google Groups >>>>> search for "Scottish". >>>> >>>> Thing is, I don't think David is a *true* Scotsman! >>> >>> He isn't. A true Scotsman's surname starts with Mac. David's doesn't. QED. >> >> Where _is_ Mark McIntyre? Mark D. McIntyre - Cambridge perhaps. -- Morris Dovey http://www.iedu.com/Solar/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 21:27 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <mtn4ol$qr0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #70985 |
On 20/09/15 20:31, Richard Bos wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: > >> On 08/09/2015 20:31, Noob wrote: >>> On 08/09/2015 19:11, James Kuyper wrote: >>> >>>> On 09/08/2015 11:55 AM, Noob wrote: >>>> >>>>> Damn right! No true Scotsman would ever be considered a "reg". >>>> >>>> I don't know - David Brown posts here pretty regularly - 1467 messages >>>> since May 2012, according to Google Groups. There's probably other >>>> Scotsmen here - he's just the first one I found with a Google Groups >>>> search for "Scottish". >>> >>> Thing is, I don't think David is a *true* Scotsman! >> >> He isn't. A true Scotsman's surname starts with Mac. David's doesn't. QED. > > Where _is_ Mark McIntyre? Scotland? ;-) -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 22:52 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <msnhn0$k7n$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69938 |
On 08/09/15 19:11, James Kuyper wrote: > On 09/08/2015 11:55 AM, Noob wrote: >> On 08/09/2015 14:35, Kenny McCormack wrote: >> >>> Point of order: Neither RCH nor BC are "regulars" (or, "regs") in the >>> proper sense of the word. > > False. Just like Kenny, they both post here quite regularly, which is > all that's needed to justify labeling all three of them as regulars. > >> Damn right! No true Scotsman would ever be considered a "reg". > > I don't know - David Brown posts here pretty regularly - 1467 messages > since May 2012, according to Google Groups. There's probably other > Scotsmen here - he's just the first one I found with a Google Groups > search for "Scottish". > Ah, but am I a /true/ Scotsman? You'd have to catch me at a particularly windy wedding party to find out! (A true Scotsman never lets anyone know what he wears under his kilt - the point is to keep the women guessing.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 21:59 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <b%HHx.446055$aP2.255261@fx38.am4> |
| In reply to | #69974 |
On 08/09/2015 21:52, David Brown wrote: <snip> > (A true Scotsman never lets anyone know what he wears under his kilt - Everyone knows the answer to that one - socks and shoes, right? -- 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 | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 19:31 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <55ff098f.35498937@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #69974 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > Ah, but am I a /true/ Scotsman? You'd have to catch me at a > particularly windy wedding party to find out! > > (A true Scotsman never lets anyone know what he wears under his kilt - > the point is to keep the women guessing.) Surely nothing is worn under the kilt? It's all in perfect condition. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-20 13:54 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <ca1182e4-fa37-4d77-892a-e154f4f8007a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #70986 |
On Sunday, September 20, 2015 at 8:32:04 PM UTC+1, Richard Bos wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > > > Ah, but am I a /true/ Scotsman? You'd have to catch me at a > > particularly windy wedding party to find out! > > > > (A true Scotsman never lets anyone know what he wears under his kilt - > > the point is to keep the women guessing.) > > Surely nothing is worn under the kilt? It's all in perfect condition. > You can buy tins of knickers in Scotland. That's a pair of knickers in a tin, that you open with a tin opener. Every true Scotsman packs one whilst travelling.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 21:28 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <87zj0wbqpu.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #69899 |
gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes: > In article <msmigb$ii5$1@dont-email.me>, > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > ... >>We have two regulars (that I know of) that have their own toy languages > > Point of order: Neither RCH nor BC are "regulars" (or, "regs") in the > proper sense of the word. You'll need to quote the relevant part of the standard that defines "regular", and state whether its normative.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 10:56 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <msmsrf$qd9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69894 |
On 09/08/2015 07:35 AM, Noob wrote: > On 05/09/2015 14:59, David Brown wrote: > >> On 04/09/15 16:23, RCH wrote: >> >>> Is this really the "old way" of handling parameters in C? Because >>> it's very similar to what I've come up with for RDC: >> >> Yes, it's the old way in C. If you are making a completely new language >> there is nothing wrong with picking a syntax where the parameters and >> return type go on separate lines, or follow the function name in some way. > > For the love of the almighty Flying Spaghetti Monster! We already have > one kook peddling his toy languages at every turn, don't encourage an > even kookier kook to follow suit. Only one? I though we had at least three: BartC and Rick C Hodgins are two, and I thought that there was at least one other, though the name escapes me right now. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 08:33 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <9fd09318-6fed-4a83-bcdd-29fad5e0b186@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #69909 |
On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 3:56:42 PM UTC+1, James Kuyper wrote: > On 09/08/2015 07:35 AM, Noob wrote: > > > > For the love of the almighty Flying Spaghetti Monster! We already have > > one kook peddling his toy languages at every turn, don't encourage an > > even kookier kook to follow suit. > > Only one? I though we had at least three: BartC and Rick C Hodgins are > two, and I thought that there was at least one other, though the name > escapes me right now. > Bart has an interest in programming interpreters and has developed many languages, Rick has a project for a new version of C called RDC, Jacob has a C compiler which implements some extensions of his own, and I am the developer of MiniBasic, which is genuinely a toy language and doesn't pretend to be anything different.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 09:12 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <018a7a83-1502-4dd1-9172-c757da2947fe@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #69917 |
W dniu wtorek, 8 września 2015 17:33:51 UTC+2 użytkownik Malcolm McLean napisał: > On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 3:56:42 PM UTC+1, James Kuyper wrote: > > On 09/08/2015 07:35 AM, Noob wrote: > > > > > > For the love of the almighty Flying Spaghetti Monster! We already have > > > one kook peddling his toy languages at every turn, don't encourage an > > > even kookier kook to follow suit. > > > > Only one? I though we had at least three: BartC and Rick C Hodgins are > > two, and I thought that there was at least one other, though the name > > escapes me right now. > > > Bart has an interest in programming interpreters and has developed many languages, > Rick has a project for a new version of C called RDC, Jacob has a C compiler > which implements some extensions of his own, and I am the developer of MiniBasic, > which is genuinely a toy language and doesn't pretend to be anything different. Im a C2 inventor and theoretician - though right now it only lives in my head (and has empty folder for a c2 compiler to write, which i make for fun 11.11.11 at 11:11:11)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 09:18 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <f28d4490-0dad-4f78-918f-e8faa76e3b01@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #69927 |
On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 12:12:27 PM UTC-4, fir wrote: > W dniu wtorek, 8 września 2015 17:33:51 UTC+2 użytkownik Malcolm McLean napisał: > > On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 3:56:42 PM UTC+1, James Kuyper wrote: > > > On 09/08/2015 07:35 AM, Noob wrote: > > > > > > > > For the love of the almighty Flying Spaghetti Monster! We already have > > > > one kook peddling his toy languages at every turn, don't encourage an > > > > even kookier kook to follow suit. > > > > > > Only one? I though we had at least three: BartC and Rick C Hodgins are > > > two, and I thought that there was at least one other, though the name > > > escapes me right now. > > > > > Bart has an interest in programming interpreters and has developed many languages, > > Rick has a project for a new version of C called RDC, Jacob has a C compiler > > which implements some extensions of his own, and I am the developer of MiniBasic, > > which is genuinely a toy language and doesn't pretend to be anything different. > > Im a C2 inventor and theoretician - though right now it only lives in my head > (and has empty folder for a c2 compiler to write, which i make for fun 11.11.11 at 11:11:11) Back in the mid-2000s, I had goals of releasing my operating system on 10/10/2010 at 10:10:10 AM. :-) Thought that would be neat. "The perfect 10." :-) Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 10:15 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <980b8026-815b-4944-a848-64a4c6cb8500@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #69929 |
W dniu wtorek, 8 września 2015 18:19:00 UTC+2 użytkownik Rick C. Hodgin napisał: > On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 12:12:27 PM UTC-4, fir wrote: > > W dniu wtorek, 8 września 2015 17:33:51 UTC+2 użytkownik Malcolm McLean napisał: > > > On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 3:56:42 PM UTC+1, James Kuyper wrote: > > > > On 09/08/2015 07:35 AM, Noob wrote: > > > > > > > > > > For the love of the almighty Flying Spaghetti Monster! We already have > > > > > one kook peddling his toy languages at every turn, don't encourage an > > > > > even kookier kook to follow suit. > > > > > > > > Only one? I though we had at least three: BartC and Rick C Hodgins are > > > > two, and I thought that there was at least one other, though the name > > > > escapes me right now. > > > > > > > Bart has an interest in programming interpreters and has developed many languages, > > > Rick has a project for a new version of C called RDC, Jacob has a C compiler > > > which implements some extensions of his own, and I am the developer of MiniBasic, > > > which is genuinely a toy language and doesn't pretend to be anything different. > > > > Im a C2 inventor and theoretician - though right now it only lives in my head > > (and has empty folder for a c2 compiler to write, which i make for fun 11.11.11 at 11:11:11) > > Back in the mid-2000s, I had goals of releasing my operating system on > 10/10/2010 at 10:10:10 AM. :-) Thought that would be neat. "The > perfect 10." :-) > > Best regards, > Rick C. Hodgin mine is better , maybe if i was lucky it was even 11.11.11 11:!1:11 .111111 both matrix and all 9 parts of starwars (and what else) allusions encompassed my c2 language is somewhat alusive in some ways to starwars, at least it briges to some oldschool kind of 'cyfral' imagination
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-08 08:38 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: (Not) discussing C-like toy languages |
| Message-ID | <416b2109-859f-4332-aec9-cf0570c7604d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #69909 |
On Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 10:56:42 AM UTC-4, James Kuyper wrote: > On 09/08/2015 07:35 AM, Noob wrote: > > On 05/09/2015 14:59, David Brown wrote: > > > >> On 04/09/15 16:23, RCH wrote: > >> > >>> Is this really the "old way" of handling parameters in C? Because > >>> it's very similar to what I've come up with for RDC: > >> > >> Yes, it's the old way in C. If you are making a completely new language > >> there is nothing wrong with picking a syntax where the parameters and > >> return type go on separate lines, or follow the function name in some way. > > > > For the love of the almighty Flying Spaghetti Monster! We already have > > one kook peddling his toy languages at every turn, don't encourage an > > even kookier kook to follow suit. > > Only one? I though we had at least three: BartC and Rick C Hodgins It's "Hodgin" not "Hodgins". I am not plural. :-) > are > two, and I thought that there was at least one other, though the name > escapes me right now. > -- > James Kuyper Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web