Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #7572 > unrolled thread
| Started by | David Remacle <listes@NOSpamclampin.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-07-04 07:31 +0000 |
| Last post | 2011-07-06 16:07 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 197 — 35 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
C is fixed or not ? David Remacle <listes@NOSpamclampin.com> - 2011-07-04 07:31 +0000
Re: C is fixed or not ? China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-04 00:46 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-04 23:03 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-04 21:17 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 16:59 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-07-04 09:06 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-04 23:05 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-07-06 08:12 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 17:02 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? "Joachim Schmitz" <nospam.jojo@schmitz-digital.de> - 2011-07-04 10:17 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-07-04 11:37 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-07-04 11:31 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-07-04 08:01 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-07-04 17:29 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-04 12:01 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-04 19:20 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-05 07:53 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-04 22:39 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-05 15:33 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-04 23:32 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-04 23:28 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-05 07:29 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 17:17 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 03:37 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 17:21 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-06 00:09 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 07:59 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-05 23:52 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-06 11:20 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-06 09:30 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-07 08:16 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2011-07-07 11:13 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-07 17:23 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? jameskuyper <jameskuyper@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 08:11 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 03:21 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-05 19:41 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 04:15 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-05 23:42 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 08:44 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 15:00 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-06 23:22 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 22:23 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-06 11:32 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 10:27 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 19:41 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-07 00:19 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-07 09:24 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-10 16:27 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 00:21 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 23:20 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 00:04 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 22:52 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-07 23:47 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 01:59 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-07 00:22 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 15:25 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-08 08:01 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 22:59 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 22:57 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-10 16:03 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-11 08:19 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-12 00:31 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-12 19:39 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-12 06:06 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-12 22:14 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 19:11 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 22:49 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-06 17:05 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-07 00:27 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-07 06:39 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-07 12:45 +0200
POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows (was: C is fixed or not ?) Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-07-07 15:17 +0200
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2011-07-07 11:21 -0700
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-08 08:07 +1200
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-07 16:01 -0500
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 21:12 -0500
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-07 23:33 -0500
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 23:49 -0500
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2011-08-03 07:32 -0700
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2011-07-07 15:06 -0700
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-10 16:08 -0400
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows William Ahern <william@wilbur.25thandClement.com> - 2011-07-10 16:09 -0700
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-11 06:20 -0400
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-11 22:36 +1200
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2011-07-11 16:18 +0000
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows (was: C is fixed or not ?) Joshua Maurice <joshuamaurice@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 19:01 -0700
Re: POSIX threads hard to implement in Windows (was: C is fixed or not ?) "Ersek, Laszlo" <lacos@caesar.elte.hu> - 2011-07-14 23:05 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-07 15:30 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-07 11:00 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-07 13:30 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 21:30 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 02:34 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-13 01:35 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-12 22:30 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-07-10 01:31 +0100
Windows Posix Support (was Re: C is fixed or not ?) Todd Carnes <toddcarnes@gmail.com> - 2011-07-10 01:06 +0000
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-13 01:25 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-12 22:50 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-13 17:27 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-07-16 03:00 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 22:35 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? "christian.bau" <christian.bau@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-06 17:24 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-07 07:02 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-06 14:46 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 04:04 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Jens Gustedt <Jens.Gustedt@loria.fr> - 2011-07-06 09:25 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-04 23:20 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-05 07:33 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 17:49 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? jameskuyper <jameskuyper@gmail.com> - 2011-07-05 14:47 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 03:11 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-06 14:26 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 04:00 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-06 15:22 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 14:36 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-07 07:56 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-08 02:15 +0300
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-08 15:31 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-05 23:29 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 14:34 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 22:00 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 13:20 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-08 10:47 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 11:07 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-08 14:56 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-13 07:50 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-14 21:00 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-15 14:29 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-14 22:58 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-07-15 11:31 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-15 21:49 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-16 15:00 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-15 23:08 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-16 16:23 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-15 23:50 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-16 17:13 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 00:26 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-16 08:23 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 03:35 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-16 10:17 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-16 10:21 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 04:39 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-16 12:22 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 16:14 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-07-17 08:01 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-07-16 13:48 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 23:56 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-07-17 13:48 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-18 06:32 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-07-19 01:14 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-15 00:50 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-15 22:44 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-15 20:58 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-15 23:09 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-16 08:24 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 03:38 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-16 10:17 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-07-16 11:46 +0000
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-16 14:53 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-16 23:58 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-18 02:47 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-18 06:41 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-18 02:46 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-18 06:46 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-07-15 01:24 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 21:49 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 12:47 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-08 17:44 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Oliver Jackson <chexmofo@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-09 00:46 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 08:33 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-06 20:10 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 14:35 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-07-06 11:45 -0400
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-06 19:35 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 21:10 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 21:44 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-07 07:58 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-07-06 15:59 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 17:39 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-07 08:03 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 17:16 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-07 21:39 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-07-08 12:42 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-08 15:19 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-08 17:46 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-07-04 17:35 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-07-06 08:26 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-07 19:52 +0300
Re: C is fixed or not ? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-07-05 08:09 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-07-05 16:04 +0200
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-04 23:07 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? "christian.bau" <christian.bau@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-06 17:11 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-07-07 16:29 +0100
Re: C is fixed or not ? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-08 08:09 +1200
Re: C is fixed or not ? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-04 14:35 -0700
Re: C is fixed or not ? "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> - 2011-07-04 23:01 -0500
Re: C is fixed or not ? Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-07-06 16:07 +0100
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
| From | David Remacle <listes@NOSpamclampin.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-04 07:31 +0000 |
| Subject | C is fixed or not ? |
| Message-ID | <4e116c59$0$13719$426a34cc@news.free.fr> |
Hello, I am a french speaker but i will try to be clear. My question is : The C langage is it fixed or still in change ? Thank's. ps I would not be a throll it is just a question.
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-04 00:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <chine.bleu-DB5226.00461404072011@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #7572 |
In article <4e116c59$0$13719$426a34cc@news.free.fr>, David Remacle <listes@NOSpamclampin.com> wrote: > Hello, > > I am a french speaker but i will try to be clear. > > My question is : The C langage is it fixed or still in change ? Algol 60 is fixed. It's also not used anymore. -- I remember finding out about you, |A free Thai dyed shirt in every box. Everyday my mind is all around you,| I'm whoever you want me to be. Looking out from my lonely room | Annoying Usenet one post at a time. Day after day. | At least I can stay in character.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-04 23:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iuu2ed$rt4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7575 |
China Blue Dolls wrote: > In article <4e116c59$0$13719$426a34cc@news.free.fr>, > David Remacle <listes@NOSpamclampin.com> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> I am a french speaker but i will try to be clear. >> >> My question is : The C langage is it fixed or still in change ? > > Algol 60 is fixed. It's also not used anymore. But Algol was surely a woman (note the complexity).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-04 21:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <chine.bleu-9D7B0D.21173404072011@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #7638 |
In article <iuu2ed$rt4$1@dont-email.me>, "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> wrote: > China Blue Dolls wrote: > > In article <4e116c59$0$13719$426a34cc@news.free.fr>, > > David Remacle <listes@NOSpamclampin.com> wrote: > > > >> Hello, > >> > >> I am a french speaker but i will try to be clear. > >> > >> My question is : The C langage is it fixed or still in change ? > > > > Algol 60 is fixed. It's also not used anymore. > > But Algol was surely a woman (note the complexity). She was a lady. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=358046&dl=ACM&coll=DL&CFID=32796428&CFTOKEN =95170792 The faded majesty of Lady Algol Peter Brown continues his exploration of Babel Street with a visit to the aging Lady Algol who, despite her great fecundity, still retains a measure of the beauty that won her much success abroad. Lady Algol has a shop at number 60. A rival shop, run by a relative, is at number 68 but has not, as yet, had much effect on her business. The shop impressed me, but when I went inside I was even more impressed by Lady Algol herself. Although she is getting old now, I was still struck by her grace and beauty. One could well understand how she appealed to the youth of her day. Yet there were signs of old age--a few wrinkles and a very slightly faded look about her. Perhaps this is why her appeal is not so strong to today's youth. We talked of the past. She reminisced enthusi- astically of the times when every eager academic in Europe sought after her. -- I remember finding out about you, |A free Thai dyed shirt in every box. Everyday my mind is all around you,| I'm whoever you want me to be. Looking out from my lonely room | Annoying Usenet one post at a time. Day after day. | At least I can stay in character.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 16:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iv5a7q$mi6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7640 |
China Blue Dolls wrote: > In article <iuu2ed$rt4$1@dont-email.me>, "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> > wrote: > >> China Blue Dolls wrote: >>> In article <4e116c59$0$13719$426a34cc@news.free.fr>, >>> David Remacle <listes@NOSpamclampin.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> I am a french speaker but i will try to be clear. >>>> >>>> My question is : The C langage is it fixed or still in change ? >>> >>> Algol 60 is fixed. It's also not used anymore. >> >> But Algol was surely a woman (note the complexity). > > She was a lady. > > http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=358046&dl=ACM&coll=DL&CFID=32796428&CFTOKEN > =95170792 > > The faded majesty of Lady Algol > Peter Brown continues his exploration of Babel Street with a visit to > the aging Lady Algol who, despite her great fecundity, still retains > a measure of the beauty that won her much success abroad. > Lady Algol has a shop at number 60. A rival shop, run by a relative, > is at number 68 but has not, as yet, had much effect on her business. > The shop impressed me, but when I went inside I was even more > impressed by Lady Algol herself. Although she is getting old now, I > was still struck by her grace and beauty. One could well understand > how she appealed to the youth of her day. Yet there were signs of old > age--a few wrinkles and a very slightly faded look about her. Perhaps > this is why her appeal is not so strong to today's youth. > We talked of the past. She reminisced enthusi- astically of the times > when every eager academic in Europe sought after her. Did she speak of her children? As faces only a mother could love? As bastards or perverts perhaps?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-04 09:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <NVFNNYDTSXEOFAih@phaedsys.demon.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #7572 |
In message <4e116c59$0$13719$426a34cc@news.free.fr>, David Remacle <listes@NOSpamclampin.com> writes >Hello, > >I am a french speaker but i will try to be clear. > >My question is : The C langage is it fixed or still in change ? > >Thank's. > >ps I would not be a throll it is just a question. The C language is still in change. There should be a new version in 2012 -- Support Sarah Palin for the next US President Go Palin! Go Palin! Go Palin! In God We Trust! Rapture Ready!!! http://www.sarahpac.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-04 23:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iuu452$3mq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7578 |
Chris H wrote: > In message <4e116c59$0$13719$426a34cc@news.free.fr>, David Remacle > <listes@NOSpamclampin.com> writes >> Hello, >> >> I am a french speaker but i will try to be clear. >> >> My question is : The C langage is it fixed or still in change ? >> >> Thank's. >> >> ps I would not be a throll it is just a question. > > The C language is still in change. There should be a new version in > 2012 C cannot be changed, it can only be replaced.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 08:12 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dyH5k8BcrAFOFA6r@phaedsys.demon.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #7642 |
In message <iuu452$3mq$1@dont-email.me>, MikeP <mp011011@some.org> writes >Chris H wrote: >> In message <4e116c59$0$13719$426a34cc@news.free.fr>, David Remacle >> <listes@NOSpamclampin.com> writes >>> Hello, >>> >>> I am a french speaker but i will try to be clear. >>> >>> My question is : The C langage is it fixed or still in change ? >>> >>> Thank's. >>> >>> ps I would not be a throll it is just a question. >> >> The C language is still in change. There should be a new version in >> 2012 > >C cannot be changed, it can only be replaced. Wrong.... We are constantly updating C -- Support Sarah Palin for the next US President Go Palin! Go Palin! Go Palin! In God We Trust! Rapture Ready!!! http://www.sarahpac.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 17:02 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iv5biq$uq2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7737 |
Chris H wrote: > In message <iuu452$3mq$1@dont-email.me>, MikeP <mp011011@some.org> > writes >> Chris H wrote: >>> In message <4e116c59$0$13719$426a34cc@news.free.fr>, David Remacle >>> <listes@NOSpamclampin.com> writes >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> I am a french speaker but i will try to be clear. >>>> >>>> My question is : The C langage is it fixed or still in change ? >>>> >>>> Thank's. >>>> >>>> ps I would not be a throll it is just a question. >>> >>> The C language is still in change. There should be a new version in >>> 2012 >> >> C cannot be changed, it can only be replaced. > > Wrong.... We are constantly updating C For the niches it is used in now. Remember though, it started out being called a "general purpose language" and saw some usage as such until people realized that it failed miserably at that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Joachim Schmitz" <nospam.jojo@schmitz-digital.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-04 10:17 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <iursus$sv9$1@online.de> |
| In reply to | #7572 |
David Remacle wrote: > Hello, > > I am a french speaker but i will try to be clear. > > My question is : The C langage is it fixed or still in change ? The ISO commitee is still active and proposing changes for an upcomog C201x See http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1570.pdf for the current draft for the next C standard See also comp.std.c, which is where these thing get discussed. Bye, Jojo
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Noob <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-04 11:37 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ius1ku$d0t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7572 |
David Remacle wrote: > Hello, > > I am a french speaker but i will try to be clear. > > My question is : The C langage is it fixed or still in change ? > > Thanks. > > ps I would not be a throll it is just a question. Bonjour, In case you're wondering, the francophone news group is fr.comp.lang.c Regards.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-04 11:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <dqL5i3GoZZEOFAjS@phaedsys.demon.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #7572 |
In message <C-20110704105054@ram.dialup.fu-berlin.de>, Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> writes >David Remacle <listes@NOSpamclampin.com> writes: >>My question is : The C langage is it fixed or still in change ? > > The language described by ›ISO/IEC 9899:1999 (E) C‹ is fixed > (ignoring possible inconsistences or absences of definitions). > > However, what language is referred to as ›C‹ by the folks > changes in time. Therefore, technically, ›C‹ is not the name > of a specific language. This, partially, is done for marketing > reasons. (K&R [1st Edition] C was successful. ISO/IEC 9899:1999 > (E) C is another language, but ISO called it ›C‹ to inherit > the success of K&R [1st Edition] C, and people followed.) > > So we now have to live with the possibility that ›C‹ in 20 > years from now might be quite a different language, again. > > To name a specific language, precede its name by the specification > of its implementation or specification, such as, for example: > > - K&R (1st edition) C > - ISO/IEC 9899:1999 (E) C > - GNU (compiler version) C What a load of drivel. C is NOT fixed. It is a continually evolving language. There were errors and erata's for K&R1 C90 (ISO9899:1990) had 1 amendment and THREE TC'1 C99 Also has TC's (Technical Corrigendum fixing, amending and changing) C1* is in development. So your statement that ISO C 9899:1999 is fixed is incorrect. GNU is NOT C... C is defined by ISO. GNU has it's own definition for GCC. GCC was developed in parallel and diverged from what became ISO C. -- Support Sarah Palin for the next US President Go Palin! Go Palin! Go Palin! In God We Trust! Rapture Ready!!! http://www.sarahpac.com/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-04 08:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5fa80219-4bc8-4af8-9766-54501eb5ab90@j15g2000yqf.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7572 |
On Jul 4, 10:31 am, David Remacle <lis...@NOSpamclampin.com> wrote: > > My question is : The C langage is it fixed or still in change ? > It's largely fixed. There was an attempt to update the language to include features like variable-sized arrays, however it failed to be widely accepted. The user community preferred the language as it was. There will be a few changes in future, but expect them to be minor. -- Read my book MiniBASIC - how to write a script interpreter http://www.lulu.com/bgy1mm
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Noob <root@127.0.0.1> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-04 17:29 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <iusm9i$g3g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7593 |
Malcolm McLean wrote: > It's largely fixed. There was an attempt to update the language to > include features like variable-sized arrays [i.e. C99], however it > failed to be widely accepted. The user community preferred the > language as it was. > > There will be a few changes in future, but expect them to be minor. Do you consider multi-threading support and bounds-checking interfaces minor features? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C1X Or do you think these features will not make it into the next standard? :-) Regards.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-04 12:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <iuso52$shb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7595 |
On 07/04/2011 11:29 AM, Noob wrote: > Malcolm McLean wrote: > >> It's largely fixed. There was an attempt to update the language to >> include features like variable-sized arrays [i.e. C99], however it >> failed to be widely accepted. The user community preferred the >> language as it was. >> >> There will be a few changes in future, but expect them to be minor. > > Do you consider multi-threading support and bounds-checking > interfaces minor features? > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C1X > > Or do you think these features will not make it into the > next standard? His comments about the past make sense only if he's referring to the language as actually used, rather than as defined by the relevant standards. His comments about the future are therefore, presumably, about the language as it will be used, not about anticipated changes to the standard. The multi-threading features seem to be on track for approval, so his comments imply that those changes will be just as unpopular as the ones made in C99. Since support for multi-threaded code seems to be one of the most popular requests in this forum, that suggests a judgment the multi-threaded support in C1X is so poorly designed that it won't actually be used. Is it? I can't tell, I've insufficient experience with such things to judge. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-04 19:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <iussos$ndi$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #7596 |
Le 04/07/11 18:01, James Kuyper a écrit : > On 07/04/2011 11:29 AM, Noob wrote: >> Malcolm McLean wrote: >> >>> It's largely fixed. There was an attempt to update the language to >>> include features like variable-sized arrays [i.e. C99], however it >>> failed to be widely accepted. The user community preferred the >>> language as it was. > The multi-threading features seem to be on track for approval, so his > comments imply that those changes will be just as unpopular as the ones > made in C99. Since support for multi-threaded code seems to be one of > the most popular requests in this forum, that suggests a judgment the > multi-threaded support in C1X is so poorly designed that it won't > actually be used. Is it? I can't tell, I've insufficient experience with > such things to judge. That will be a catastrophe. There are mainly two competing standards that take 100% of the multi- threaded code in C: (1) POSIX pthreads (2) Windows threads The idea that people will REWRITE their threading code to please a standard that isn't debugged, and has (at the start) ZERO support is completely unconnected with software construction realities. The features that were added to C99 didn't get wide support because they weren't really essential but they were completely easy to implement (and for many) GNU had already broken ground with them. Implementing multi threading support however is completely different. This needs a LOT of care to implement, and compiler vendors will hesitate to implement something nobody asked them to do. You say: > Since support for multi-threaded code seems to be one of > the most popular requests in this forum... I do not remember ANYBODY asking for multi-threading support in this forum for the pas 10 years or so, in any case as my memory serves If you search with google you will find a thread of about 2005 when somebody wrote here he was writing a multi-threaded TCP server and he got the usual answer that multi-threading is system- specific and should go somewhere else. And you tell us "the most popular request"... It is obvious that you want t support the committee, and maybe it is right to do so. Bending the truth is not a good strategy however. In this forum (and in comp.std.c) NOBODY has asked for that. The committee decided to include that because Mr Plaugher decided that he wanted that in the standard, not because in the user community somebody asked for that. The first versions of the specs were just a COPY AND PASTE from the documentation of Plaugher's multi-thread library. Maybe that has changed, I did not follow that since I consider that the language can't do a THIRD specification that will ADD TO THE CONFUSION of already two competing threading models. I see that as completely ridiculous
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-05 07:53 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <97ek3iFq2bU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #7598 |
On 07/ 5/11 05:20 AM, jacob navia wrote: > Le 04/07/11 18:01, James Kuyper a écrit : >> On 07/04/2011 11:29 AM, Noob wrote: >>> Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> >>>> It's largely fixed. There was an attempt to update the language to >>>> include features like variable-sized arrays [i.e. C99], however it >>>> failed to be widely accepted. The user community preferred the >>>> language as it was. > >> The multi-threading features seem to be on track for approval, so his >> comments imply that those changes will be just as unpopular as the ones >> made in C99. Since support for multi-threaded code seems to be one of >> the most popular requests in this forum, that suggests a judgment the >> multi-threaded support in C1X is so poorly designed that it won't >> actually be used. Is it? I can't tell, I've insufficient experience with >> such things to judge. > > That will be a catastrophe. > > There are mainly two competing standards that take 100% of the multi- > threaded code in C: > > (1) POSIX pthreads > (2) Windows threads > > The idea that people will REWRITE their threading code to please a > standard that isn't debugged, and has (at the start) ZERO support > is completely unconnected with software construction realities. > > The features that were added to C99 didn't get wide support because > they weren't really essential but they were completely easy to > implement (and for many) GNU had already broken ground with them. > > Implementing multi threading support however is completely different. > > This needs a LOT of care to implement, and compiler vendors > will hesitate to implement something nobody asked them to do. > > You say: > > > Since support for multi-threaded code seems to be one of > > the most popular requests in this forum... > > I do not remember ANYBODY asking for multi-threading support in > this forum for the pas 10 years or so, in any case as my > memory serves Well it has been one of the most requested new features in C++. Having native atomics built into the language will be a big win for both C and C++. Thanks to the speed of adoption of the soon to be released C++0x, the feature should have widespread support form vendors who provide both C and C++ compilers. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-04 22:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <iut8do$n1u$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #7602 |
Le 04/07/11 21:53, Ian Collins a écrit : > On 07/ 5/11 05:20 AM, jacob navia wrote: >> >> You say: >> >> > Since support for multi-threaded code seems to be one of >> > the most popular requests in this forum... >> >> I do not remember ANYBODY asking for multi-threading support in >> this forum for the pas 10 years or so, in any case as my >> memory serves > > Well it has been one of the most requested new features in C++. Having > native atomics built into the language will be a big win for both C and > C++. > > Thanks to the speed of adoption of the soon to be released C++0x, the > feature should have widespread support form vendors who provide both C > and C++ compilers. > OK, then, kif you want a change in the C standard you particiâte in comp.lang.c++. Now I understand... NONE of the proposals discussed in cmp.std.c has made it into the standard. Obviously we were in the wrong group
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-05 15:33 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <97ff25FbruU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #7603 |
On 07/ 5/11 08:39 AM, jacob navia wrote: > Le 04/07/11 21:53, Ian Collins a écrit : >> On 07/ 5/11 05:20 AM, jacob navia wrote: >>> >>> You say: >>> >>>> Since support for multi-threaded code seems to be one of >>>> the most popular requests in this forum... >>> >>> I do not remember ANYBODY asking for multi-threading support in >>> this forum for the pas 10 years or so, in any case as my >>> memory serves >> >> Well it has been one of the most requested new features in C++. Having >> native atomics built into the language will be a big win for both C and >> C++. >> >> Thanks to the speed of adoption of the soon to be released C++0x, the >> feature should have widespread support form vendors who provide both C >> and C++ compilers. >> > > OK, then, kif you want a change in the C standard you particiâte in > comp.lang.c++. > > Now I understand... > > NONE of the proposals discussed in cmp.std.c has made it into the > standard. Obviously we were in the wrong group Have you ever heard of cooperation? http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2010/n3137.html -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-04 23:32 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iuu454$3mq$5@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7635 |
Ian Collins wrote: > On 07/ 5/11 08:39 AM, jacob navia wrote: >> Le 04/07/11 21:53, Ian Collins a écrit : >>> On 07/ 5/11 05:20 AM, jacob navia wrote: >>>> >>>> You say: >>>> >>>>> Since support for multi-threaded code seems to be one of >>>>> the most popular requests in this forum... >>>> >>>> I do not remember ANYBODY asking for multi-threading support in >>>> this forum for the pas 10 years or so, in any case as my >>>> memory serves >>> >>> Well it has been one of the most requested new features in C++. >>> Having native atomics built into the language will be a big win for >>> both C and C++. >>> >>> Thanks to the speed of adoption of the soon to be released C++0x, >>> the feature should have widespread support form vendors who provide >>> both C and C++ compilers. >>> >> >> OK, then, kif you want a change in the C standard you particiâte in >> comp.lang.c++. >> >> Now I understand... >> >> NONE of the proposals discussed in cmp.std.c has made it into the >> standard. Obviously we were in the wrong group > > Have you ever heard of cooperation? > > http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2010/n3137.htmlj I don't understand y'all. Why don't you just merge and do the best you can with both obsolete technologies? "Have you ever heard of cooperation?", funny guy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web