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 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
| From | Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-18 02:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <6a098761-f86e-478c-a910-2d277183b124@p31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8372 |
On Jul 17, 5:58 am, "MikeP" <mp011...@some.org> wrote: > lawrence.jo...@siemens.com wrote: > > MikeP <mp011...@some.org> wrote: > >> Nick Keighley wrote: > > >>> there is nothing as practical as a good theory. > > >> LOL. You surely meant to say: there's nothing practical about theory! > > > In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice but in > > practice, there often is. :-) > > Yes, surely I was quipping about that. Who said that? I think you just > admonished me Mr. Jones. TY. Eh em.. uh, you were saying Nick? Cat got > your tongue? (hehehe). I don't get on here as often as a I used to > Just kiddin' ya Joe. my name isn't Joe
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-18 06:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <j0165c$5h2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #8416 |
Nick Keighley wrote: > On Jul 17, 5:58 am, "MikeP" <mp011...@some.org> wrote: >> lawrence.jo...@siemens.com wrote: >>> MikeP <mp011...@some.org> wrote: >>>> Nick Keighley wrote: >> >>>>> there is nothing as practical as a good theory. >> >>>> LOL. You surely meant to say: there's nothing practical about >>>> theory! >> >>> In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice but in >>> practice, there often is. :-) >> >> Yes, surely I was quipping about that. Who said that? I think you >> just admonished me Mr. Jones. TY. Eh em.. uh, you were saying Nick? >> Cat got your tongue? (hehehe). > > I don't get on here as often as a I used to > >> Just kiddin' ya Joe. > > my name isn't Joe Thx. I cracked up when I read that. :]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-18 02:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f257383c-efd4-42e2-b2a5-eb351c069d41@a31g2000vbt.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8335 |
On Jul 16, 4:44 am, "MikeP" <mp011...@some.org> wrote: > Nick Keighley wrote: > > On Jul 15, 3:00 am, "MikeP" <mp011...@some.org> wrote: > >> Nick Keighley wrote: > >>> On Jul 8, 4:00 am, "MikeP" <mp011...@some.org> wrote: > >>>> James Kuyper wrote: <snip> > >>>> Let's see.. the POSIX/Unix crowd has their threading API already > >>>> and the Windows crowd has theirs, and you are making the > >>>> assumption that something that works on both platforms is going to > >>>> be liked/used by either of those groups, even knowing that the > >>>> approaches are different? What are the chances! > > >>> some people write portable code. i find it vaguely irritating that > >>> unix and windows have gratuitious incompatibilities in, say, > >>> sockets. If I could do the thready part of the program in some > >>> standard API and have it Just Work then I'd feel a strong > >>> compulsion to use that API. I could alos avoid learning two > >>> presumably subtly different thread approaches. Seems a win win to > >>> me. > > >> Well that's the THEORY behind programming language standard > >> libraries, > > > there is nothing as practical as a good theory. > LOL. You surely meant to say: there's nothing practical about theory! no. I meant exactly what I said. I find it odd that people scorn theory. It's our guide to the world. <snip> > >> (Aside: The C std library is, of course, the Unix API, so why someone > >> would want to use it on Windows escapes me. One could further on that > >> track by asking why anyone would want to use C (the Unix PL) on > >> Windows!). > > > what do you thing Windows was programmed in? Take a look at the Win32 > > API. It's C. you missed my point. If Unix can be programmed in C because it was implemented in C (a dumb argument in the first place) why shouldn't Windows be oprogrammed in C? > That was a loooong time ago. It's changing. It doesn't take much > imagination to see the trends. so enlighten us. Is it all going to be programmed in .Net?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-18 06:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <j016ee$725$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #8415 |
Nick Keighley wrote: > On Jul 16, 4:44 am, "MikeP" <mp011...@some.org> wrote: >> Nick Keighley wrote: >>> On Jul 15, 3:00 am, "MikeP" <mp011...@some.org> wrote: >>>> Nick Keighley wrote: >>>>> On Jul 8, 4:00 am, "MikeP" <mp011...@some.org> wrote: >>>>>> James Kuyper wrote: > > <snip> > >>>>>> Let's see.. the POSIX/Unix crowd has their threading API already >>>>>> and the Windows crowd has theirs, and you are making the >>>>>> assumption that something that works on both platforms is going >>>>>> to be liked/used by either of those groups, even knowing that the >>>>>> approaches are different? What are the chances! >> >>>>> some people write portable code. i find it vaguely irritating that >>>>> unix and windows have gratuitious incompatibilities in, say, >>>>> sockets. If I could do the thready part of the program in some >>>>> standard API and have it Just Work then I'd feel a strong >>>>> compulsion to use that API. I could alos avoid learning two >>>>> presumably subtly different thread approaches. Seems a win win to >>>>> me. >> >>>> Well that's the THEORY behind programming language standard >>>> libraries, >> >>> there is nothing as practical as a good theory. >> LOL. You surely meant to say: there's nothing practical about theory! > > no. I meant exactly what I said. I find it odd that people scorn > theory. It's our guide to the world. Sowwy, I didn't know I was in church. > > <snip> > >>>> (Aside: The C std library is, of course, the Unix API, so why >>>> someone would want to use it on Windows escapes me. One could >>>> further on that track by asking why anyone would want to use C >>>> (the Unix PL) on Windows!). >> >>> what do you thing Windows was programmed in? Take a look at the >>> Win32 API. It's C. > > you missed my point. If Unix can be programmed in C because it was > implemented in C (a dumb argument in the first place) why shouldn't > Windows be oprogrammed in C? Because it is obsolete\ slash = question mark, I'm not going to fight it. > > >> That was a loooong time ago. It's changing. It doesn't take much >> imagination to see the trends. > > so enlighten us. Is it all going to be programmed in .Net? Are their 2 questions there\
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-15 01:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5f105330-12b9-4e1e-8b09-3caa8d8a499d@l28g2000yqc.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8289 |
On Jul 15, 5:00 am, "MikeP" <mp011...@some.org> wrote: > > Well that's the THEORY behind programming language standard libraries, > anyway. All it really is though, is yet another wrench in the machine. > Better to program to the specific platform than some concoction that is > half-way here and half-way there, IMO. The "portable code" mantra is more > trouble than it is worth (again, IMO. Been there, done that). > It depends how you work. If the programs have trivial logic but complex user interface, e.g. drawing programs, typical business applications, arcade-style games then it's probaly more trouble that it's worth to port them. However if you've just coded an intricate natural language parser for an adventure-style game, it's a thundering nuisance to have to go through all the code and fork development, just because someone's decided that strcpy() is dangerous and therefore no longer supported. -- Malcolm's website http://www.malcolmmclean.site11.com/www
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 21:49 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iv5r75$io1$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7685 |
Rui Maciel wrote: > As POSIX is already an international standard intended to provide a > Portable Operating System Interface, and therefore designed > specifically to provide portability, wouldn't it make sense if the > new C standard simply referenced this widely established standard > instead of designing yet another redundant set of interfaces intended > to duplicate (or triplicate) already existing APIs? Refusing to > reference existing standards due to pressure from a single platform > which is sold by a single vendor doesn't make sense. > So your point is that something by some standards organization should always prevail over free enterprise? Standards are "old and stodgy"/"not where the action is". Why implement obsolescence rather than embrace state of the art? (I get the feeling that JN is a wannabe in that space but cannot compete in it: if only the committee would give him their blessing, then he would be able to play with the big boys. Do I have you figured out yet JN?).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 12:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4e16efb9$0$22162$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #7922 |
MikeP wrote: > So your point is that something by some standards organization should > always prevail over free enterprise? Standards are "old and stodgy"/"not > where the action is". Why implement obsolescence rather than embrace > state of the art? Please demonstrate where exactly the pthreads API is obsolete and how dinkumware's wrapper is superior to it. Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 17:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iv817g$aj5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7958 |
Rui Maciel wrote: > MikeP wrote: > >> So your point is that something by some standards organization should >> always prevail over free enterprise? Standards are "old and >> stodgy"/"not where the action is". Why implement obsolescence rather >> than embrace state of the art? > > Please demonstrate where exactly the pthreads API is obsolete and how > dinkumware's wrapper is superior to it. > When I receive your check in the mail and it clears, I will do that analysis for you. Seriously, anything standardized and 10 years old is surely something holding back progress. I speak in general, but it is generally true. C, C++, their libraries: all hindrances to progress. Other examples abound.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Oliver Jackson <chexmofo@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-09 00:46 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <706cf598-5a82-4bb8-8916-60b08089d24e@t9g2000vbv.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #8010 |
On Jul 8, 3:44 pm, "MikeP" <mp011...@some.org> wrote: > Rui Maciel wrote: > > MikeP wrote: > > >> So your point is that something by some standards organization should > >> always prevail over free enterprise? Standards are "old and > >> stodgy"/"not where the action is". Why implement obsolescence rather > >> than embrace state of the art? > > > Please demonstrate where exactly the pthreads API is obsolete and how > > dinkumware's wrapper is superior to it. > > When I receive your check in the mail and it clears, I will do that > analysis for you. > > Seriously, anything standardized and 10 years old is surely something > holding back progress. I speak in general, but it is generally true. C, > C++, their libraries: all hindrances to progress. Other examples abound. Your mom abounds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 08:33 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <iv0vk5$vn8$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #7681 |
Le 05/07/11 23:47, jameskuyper a écrit : > There's always a lot of old code that never gets rewritten to work > with/take advantage of new features in the language. That's one of the > key reasons why both I and the committee prefer a more conservative > approach to language change than you usually do. It's rather > refreshing to see you recognizing this as a potential problem. There's > some hope for you yet! > NONE of the proposal I have developped (operator overloading, usage of const, container library) makes ANY incompatible changes with existing code or makes for a full replacement of existing code. My proposals centered in NEW syntax/semantics for NEW code. > If the committee does a better job of this than you give them credit > for, the reason why new code might be written using the new facilities > is portability. Code that's targeted to run in both Windows and POSIX > environments could be simplified by using the new C features, rather > than being written separately for each environment. This is a > relatively minor advantage, which is why it's taken so long to > convince the committee to consider the issue, but it is still and > advantage. > The fact is that Plauger (who works for microsoft) pushed this into C++ apparently, and the C committee "decided" to follow him even if nobody was asking for that. It is a priority because the C++ changes, not because of the C language needs. The committee hasn't done any improvement of the completely obsolete C library, refuses to consider (for 5 years) a revision of the overflow bug for asctime() in the language standard text, refuses any change and suddenly wakes up to life, and will promulgate a new standard in record time because Plauger needs his multi- threading library as a standard. OK, go ahead. > I certainly hope that someone will have proven that the new features > are implementable, by implementing them, before the final vote is made > on the decision to mandate them. Do you have any rational reason to > think that they won't be? > Microsoft has abandoned C as a language and tries to get away from it with the new versions of windows OS. C# and .net are now their focus, and the decisions of the C standards committee are not much worth for them: they never implemented c99, and probably will not do anything for the next one either. Gnu stopped caring about C some time ago, and even if their implementation of c99 is a good one they stopped developing it some years ago since their main effort is c++. They may implement the new features or not, nobody knows. If they stopped implementing c99 it is unlikely that they give much credit to the committee for the next standard. >> 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. > > They weren't widely supported ... because they were easy to > implement?! Do you think they would have been more widely adopted if > they had been harder to implement? > You are misquoting me because you have nothing to 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 > > The frequent use of "thread" in this forum to refer to a connected set > of messages makes it difficult to search for such things accurately. > However, I quickly found such a suggestion that had been made as > recently as January this year, in the thread titled "Interview with > Mr. Stroustrup". Considering the source, I wouldn't consider it a > serious suggestion, but it was widely discussed by many people, > including yourself. > That was a C++ guy that told here: Do as C++ does. Since C++ wants multi-threading support C should do it too. It was a two lines sentence, and all the discussion was about Stroustroup and C++, not C. >> It is obvious that you want t support the committee, and maybe it is > > I have no desire to support them any farther than I actually am in > agreement with them. As I'm frequently in disagreement with them, and > have frequently expressed such disagreement, I'm at a loss as to how > you could conclude otherwise. > > ... >> The first versions of the specs were just a COPY AND PASTE from the >> documentation of Plaugher's multi-thread library. > > Well, in that case it should be pretty easy to confirm whether the > proposal can be implemented; if nothing else, Plaugher can make the > needed modifications to his own library, and determine whether they > work. Since his library is fairly popular, that also suggests that > there's a reasonable amount of existing experience with how to use a > library that's not too different from the final proposal. But WHY do we have to include that library in the core language?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 20:10 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <97ijl1Fo68U6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #7732 |
On 07/ 6/11 06:33 PM, jacob navia wrote: > Le 05/07/11 23:47, jameskuyper a écrit : > >> If the committee does a better job of this than you give them credit >> for, the reason why new code might be written using the new facilities >> is portability. Code that's targeted to run in both Windows and POSIX >> environments could be simplified by using the new C features, rather >> than being written separately for each environment. This is a >> relatively minor advantage, which is why it's taken so long to >> convince the committee to consider the issue, but it is still and >> advantage. >> > > The fact is that Plauger (who works for microsoft) pushed this > into C++ apparently, and the C committee "decided" to follow him > even if nobody was asking for that. It is a priority because > the C++ changes, not because of the C language needs. Care to cite where that rumour originated? I don't see PJP as authour of any of the C++ threading proposal papers. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 14:35 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <iv1kqs$jb5$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #7740 |
Le 06/07/11 10:10, Ian Collins a écrit : > On 07/ 6/11 06:33 PM, jacob navia wrote: >> Le 05/07/11 23:47, jameskuyper a écrit : >> >>> If the committee does a better job of this than you give them credit >>> for, the reason why new code might be written using the new facilities >>> is portability. Code that's targeted to run in both Windows and POSIX >>> environments could be simplified by using the new C features, rather >>> than being written separately for each environment. This is a >>> relatively minor advantage, which is why it's taken so long to >>> convince the committee to consider the issue, but it is still and >>> advantage. >>> >> >> The fact is that Plauger (who works for microsoft) pushed this >> into C++ apparently, and the C committee "decided" to follow him >> even if nobody was asking for that. It is a priority because >> the C++ changes, not because of the C language needs. > > Care to cite where that rumour originated? I don't see PJP as authour of > any of the C++ threading proposal papers. > The original proposal for the C library presented was a copy and paste of the documentation of Plauger's multi-threading library.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lawrence.jones@siemens.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 11:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <8hcee8-aki.ln1@jones.homeip.net> |
| In reply to | #7750 |
jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> wrote: > > The original proposal for the C library presented was a copy and paste > of the documentation of Plauger's multi-threading library. Dinkumware's multi-threading library. Plauger may own the company, but he doesn't do all the work. (As far as I know, his involvement with the threads library was minimal.) -- Larry Jones The living dead don't NEED to solve word problems. -- Calvin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 19:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4e14ac5b$0$20924$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #7771 |
lawrence.jones@siemens.com wrote: > Dinkumware's multi-threading library. Plauger may own the company, but > he doesn't do all the work. (As far as I know, his involvement with the > threads library was minimal.) Nonetheless, the idea of adopting some proprietary library while intentionally ignoring a widely established international standard that cover threads in C, exists for over a decade and was designed specifically with portability in mind is incomprehensible. It leaves me wondering what they had in mind when they screwed this up. Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 21:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <iv2bvr$hb2$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #7779 |
Le 06/07/11 20:35, Rui Maciel a écrit :
> lawrence.jones@siemens.com wrote:
>
>> Dinkumware's multi-threading library. Plauger may own the company, but
>> he doesn't do all the work. (As far as I know, his involvement with the
>> threads library was minimal.)
>
> Nonetheless, the idea of adopting some proprietary library while
> intentionally ignoring a widely established international standard that
> cover threads in C, exists for over a decade and was designed specifically
> with portability in mind is incomprehensible. It leaves me wondering what
> they had in mind when they screwed this up.
>
>
> Rui Maciel
The problem is that (as with many docs of libraries) they do not explain
the CONCEPTS at all.
For instance, the library describes an "xtime" structure that holds
the time in nanoseconds. OK, very useful but absolutely NO functions
are given to convert to/from other time formats already in use in the
current standard like time_t into this new tye that becomes one of the
basic types of the language!
The specs are completely vague:
<quote>
xtime
... is a structure type that holds a time specified in seconds and
nanoseconds.
<end quote>
Seconds since when? What is the start of that clock? The last
reboot? Jan 1, 1970? or another time?
Nothing, not a word about that.
Then, this type is used in functions like:
<quote>
The cnd_timedwait function atomically unlocks the mutex pointed to by
mtx and endeavors to block until the condition variable pointed to by
cond is signaled by a call to cnd_signal or to cnd_broadcast, or until
after the time specified by the xtime object pointed to by xt.
<end quote>
"After the time" supposes that
a) the time is specified as zero from the moment that function is called
b) the time is specified as the time of the wall clock, i.e. as the
time of the day.
Since that structure is defined as
struct xtime { time_t sec; long nsec;}
you can reasonably suppose that the time_t part is the same as the OTHER
time_t's floating around in other parts of the standard.
Or you can just assume that since the thread timeout is significant
only beginning at the moment the call is made it means that a
value of 1 in the sec member means & timeout of one second and not
midnight and 1 second...
All this is nowhere SPECIFIED.
I sent a detailed critique of this mibrary 2 years ago in comp.std.c
The same errors are STILL THERE!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 21:44 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <iv2dun$n00$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #7779 |
Le 06/07/11 20:35, Rui Maciel a écrit : > lawrence.jones@siemens.com wrote: > >> Dinkumware's multi-threading library. Plauger may own the company, but >> he doesn't do all the work. (As far as I know, his involvement with the >> threads library was minimal.) > > Nonetheless, the idea of adopting some proprietary library while > intentionally ignoring a widely established international standard that > cover threads in C, exists for over a decade and was designed specifically > with portability in mind is incomprehensible. It leaves me wondering what > they had in mind when they screwed this up. > > > Rui Maciel As I said in my other message, the TERMS aren't explained. What is "a thread"? Nobody knows, it is just left "as an exercise to the reader". No way to start a thread in a suspended state. Why? Because the thread creation function doesn't allow for any PARAMETERS to be passed to the underlying OS! pthreads specifies an attributes argument that can be used to further specify the behavior of the new thread. The microsoft API specifies security attributes and a set of flags. So, the C API specifies NOTHING, impossible to specify any attributes!!!! How can anybody THINK that this will be accepted by the users? It is completely NUTS. Yes, you can always use the default attributes but since they are then compiler dependent, there is no way your code will behave the same in different implementations of the API even in the same machine!!! If compiler "A" decides to default to some attributes XXX, and another to attributes YYY, your code will behave differently in the SAME MACHINE. GREAT! Look, those specs are so ridiculous that I would laugh if it weren't so sad.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 07:58 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <97jt4fFo69U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #7750 |
On 07/ 7/11 12:35 AM, jacob navia wrote: > Le 06/07/11 10:10, Ian Collins a écrit : >> On 07/ 6/11 06:33 PM, jacob navia wrote: >>> Le 05/07/11 23:47, jameskuyper a écrit : >>> >>>> If the committee does a better job of this than you give them credit >>>> for, the reason why new code might be written using the new facilities >>>> is portability. Code that's targeted to run in both Windows and POSIX >>>> environments could be simplified by using the new C features, rather >>>> than being written separately for each environment. This is a >>>> relatively minor advantage, which is why it's taken so long to >>>> convince the committee to consider the issue, but it is still and >>>> advantage. >>>> >>> >>> The fact is that Plauger (who works for microsoft) pushed this >>> into C++ apparently, and the C committee "decided" to follow him >>> even if nobody was asking for that. It is a priority because >>> the C++ changes, not because of the C language needs. >> >> Care to cite where that rumour originated? I don't see PJP as authour of >> any of the C++ threading proposal papers. >> > > The original proposal for the C library presented was a copy and paste > of the documentation of Plauger's multi-threading library. Ah OK. But you said "pushed this into C++ apparently". I was referring to the C++ papers. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 15:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o1bElDCshHFOFAM9@phaedsys.demon.co.uk> |
| In reply to | #7740 |
In message <97ijl1Fo68U6@mid.individual.net>, Ian Collins <ian- news@hotmail.com> writes >On 07/ 6/11 06:33 PM, jacob navia wrote: >> Le 05/07/11 23:47, jameskuyper a écrit : >> >>> If the committee does a better job of this than you give them credit >>> for, the reason why new code might be written using the new facilities >>> is portability. Code that's targeted to run in both Windows and POSIX >>> environments could be simplified by using the new C features, rather >>> than being written separately for each environment. This is a >>> relatively minor advantage, which is why it's taken so long to >>> convince the committee to consider the issue, but it is still and >>> advantage. >>> >> >> The fact is that Plauger (who works for microsoft) Actually he works for http://dinkumware.com/ who produce libraries for many compiler companies of whom Microsoft is but one. >> pushed this >> into C++ apparently, and the C committee "decided" to follow him >> even if nobody was asking for that. It is a priority because >> the C++ changes, not because of the C language needs. I would agree that C does not need it. > >Care to cite where that rumour originated? Which bit that he works for Microsoft? (which he clearly doesn't at least not more than any other compiler company) Or the threading stuff? -- 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 | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 17:39 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <iv1vk9$g7h$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #7763 |
Le 06/07/11 16:59, Chris H a écrit : > In message<97ijl1Fo68U6@mid.individual.net>, Ian Collins<ian- > news@hotmail.com> writes >> On 07/ 6/11 06:33 PM, jacob navia wrote: >>> Le 05/07/11 23:47, jameskuyper a écrit : >>> >>>> If the committee does a better job of this than you give them credit >>>> for, the reason why new code might be written using the new facilities >>>> is portability. Code that's targeted to run in both Windows and POSIX >>>> environments could be simplified by using the new C features, rather >>>> than being written separately for each environment. This is a >>>> relatively minor advantage, which is why it's taken so long to >>>> convince the committee to consider the issue, but it is still and >>>> advantage. >>>> >>> >>> The fact is that Plauger (who works for microsoft) > > Actually he works for http://dinkumware.com/ who produce libraries for > many compiler companies of whom Microsoft is but one. > >>> pushed this >>> into C++ apparently, and the C committee "decided" to follow him >>> even if nobody was asking for that. It is a priority because >>> the C++ changes, not because of the C language needs. > > I would agree that C does not need it. > >> >> Care to cite where that rumour originated? > > Which bit that he works for Microsoft? (which he clearly doesn't at > least not more than any other compiler company) > > Or the threading stuff? > > Dinkumware thread library ------------------------- int thrd_create(thrd_t *, thrd_start_t, void*); thrd_t thrd_current(void); int thrd_detach(thrd_t); int thrd_equal(thrd_t thr0, thrd_t thr1); void thrd_exit(int); int thrd_join(thrd_t, int*); void thrd_sleep(const xtime*); void thrd_yield(void); Proposed C standard ------------------- int thrd_create(thrd_t *thr, thrd_start_t func,void *arg); thrd_t thrd_current(void); int thrd_detach(thrd_t thr); int thrd_equal(thrd_t thr0, thrd_t thr1); void thrd_exit(int res); int thrd_join(thrd_t thr, int *res); void thrd_sleep(const xtime *xt); void thrd_yield(void); I did not pursue this further. If you do not believe me please look in http://www.dinkumware.com/manuals/?manual=compleat&page=threads.html I complained about this around 2 years ago, when I objected to the numerous errors in the proposed document.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 08:03 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <97jteiFo69U4@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #7763 |
On 07/ 7/11 02:59 AM, Chris H wrote: > In message<97ijl1Fo68U6@mid.individual.net>, Ian Collins<ian- > news@hotmail.com> writes >> On 07/ 6/11 06:33 PM, jacob navia wrote: >>> Le 05/07/11 23:47, jameskuyper a écrit : >>> >>>> If the committee does a better job of this than you give them credit >>>> for, the reason why new code might be written using the new facilities >>>> is portability. Code that's targeted to run in both Windows and POSIX >>>> environments could be simplified by using the new C features, rather >>>> than being written separately for each environment. This is a >>>> relatively minor advantage, which is why it's taken so long to >>>> convince the committee to consider the issue, but it is still and >>>> advantage. >>>> >>> >>> The fact is that Plauger (who works for microsoft) > > Actually he works for http://dinkumware.com/ who produce libraries for > many compiler companies of whom Microsoft is but one. > >>> pushed this >>> into C++ apparently, and the C committee "decided" to follow him >>> even if nobody was asking for that. It is a priority because >>> the C++ changes, not because of the C language needs. > > I would agree that C does not need it. > >> >> Care to cite where that rumour originated? > > Which bit that he works for Microsoft? (which he clearly doesn't at > least not more than any other compiler company) > > Or the threading stuff? The claim that "Plauger pushed this into C++ apparently". The C++ threading model derived from boost and atomics (with is the common ground between C and C++) from a number of proposals not written by PJP. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web