Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #7258 > unrolled thread

Typography of programs

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 02:06 +0200
    Re: Typography of programs Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-29 19:57 -0500
      Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 07:19 +0200
        Re: Typography of programs Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-30 01:08 -0500
          Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 08:16 +0200
            Re: Typography of programs Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-30 01:56 -0500
              Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 09:06 +0200
                Re: Typography of programs Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-30 02:25 -0500
                  Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 10:21 +0200
    Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-29 21:43 -0700
      Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 07:21 +0200
        Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-29 22:49 -0700
    Re: Typography of programs Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-30 16:59 +1200
      Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 07:23 +0200
        Re: Typography of programs Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-30 17:25 +1200
          Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-29 22:52 -0700
            Re: Typography of programs Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-30 17:53 +1200
              Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-29 22:58 -0700
                Re: Typography of programs Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-06-30 21:11 +1200
                  Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 11:17 +0200
                    Re: Typography of programs Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-30 12:19 +0000
                      Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 17:30 +0200
                        Re: Typography of programs Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-30 15:40 +0000
                          Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-30 12:02 -0700
                        Re: Typography of programs Ralf Damaschke <rwspam@gmx.de> - 2011-06-30 20:13 +0000
                        Re: Typography of programs "Herbert Rosenau" <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> - 2011-07-02 22:21 +0000
                          Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-03 01:22 +0200
                      Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-30 11:43 -0700
        Re: Typography of programs Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-30 08:20 +0000
        Re: Typography of programs Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-06-30 17:13 +0100
        Re: Typography of programs "Herbert Rosenau" <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> - 2011-07-01 08:52 +0000
          Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-01 10:58 +0200
            Re: Typography of programs Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-07-01 09:27 +0000
              Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-01 12:04 +0200
                Re: Typography of programs Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-07-01 12:42 +0000
          Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-01 02:05 -0700
      Re: Typography of programs "Wolfgang.Draxinger" <Wolfgang.Draxinger@physik.uni-muenchen.de> - 2011-07-01 18:10 +0200
        Re: Typography of programs Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-07-01 09:21 -0700
          Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-01 14:36 -0700
            Re: Typography of programs Joe Wright <joewwright@comcast.net> - 2011-07-01 19:29 -0400
              Re: Typography of programs Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-07-02 11:22 -0700
            Re: Typography of programs cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-07-01 23:59 +0000
    Re: Typography of programs Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-06-30 07:48 +0000
      Re: Typography of programs "Joachim Schmitz" <nospam.jojo@schmitz-digital.de> - 2011-06-30 10:03 +0200
      Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 10:32 +0200
      Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-30 01:34 -0700
        Re: Typography of programs Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-06-30 11:06 +0100
          Re: Typography of programs Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-30 16:05 -0700
        Re: Typography of programs Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-30 14:52 +0000
          Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-06-30 11:39 -0700
            Re: Typography of programs Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-30 20:55 +0000
              Re: Typography of programs "Herbert Rosenau" <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> - 2011-07-02 22:21 +0000
    Re: Typography of programs Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-06-30 09:11 -0700
      Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-06-30 21:50 +0200
        Re: Typography of programs Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-01 08:26 +1200
          Re: Typography of programs "Herbert Rosenau" <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> - 2011-07-02 22:21 +0000
        Re: Typography of programs Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-06-30 13:38 -0700
    Re: Typography of programs gordonb.9z4n8@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-07-01 23:16 -0500
      Re: Typography of programs Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-07-01 21:46 -0700
      Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-01 21:52 -0700
        Re: Typography of programs gordonb.e78ud@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-07-02 02:14 -0500
          Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-02 00:38 -0700
            Re: Typography of programs Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-02 15:00 -0700
            Re: Typography of programs Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-07-04 00:20 +0000
              Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-03 18:28 -0700
                Re: Typography of programs Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-07-04 04:42 +0000
                  Re: Typography of programs Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-07-04 01:01 -0500
                    Re: Typography of programs Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-04 08:15 +0100
                      Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-04 00:40 -0700
                        Re: Typography of programs gordonb.3nbmk@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-07-04 07:42 -0500
                          Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-04 07:15 -0700
                            Re: Typography of programs Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-07-05 20:21 +0000
                      Re: Typography of programs Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-07-04 09:56 -0500
                        Re: Typography of programs Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-07-05 20:21 +0000
                    Re: Typography of programs Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-07-04 08:04 +0000
                      Re: Typography of programs Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-07-04 09:22 -0500
                    Re: Typography of programs Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-07-05 20:21 +0000
                      Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-05 22:45 +0200
                        Re: Typography of programs Willem <willem@turtle.stack.nl> - 2011-07-05 21:52 +0000
                        Re: Typography of programs Squeamizh <squeamz@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-05 20:03 -0700
                          Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 08:46 +0200
                            Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-06 00:08 -0700
                            Re: Typography of programs Willem <willem@turtle.stack.nl> - 2011-07-06 12:12 +0000
                            Re: Typography of programs Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-07-06 11:10 -0500
                        Re: Typography of programs Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-06 07:42 +0100
      Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-02 11:02 +0200
        Re: Typography of programs Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-02 10:22 +0100
          Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-02 13:51 +0200
            Re: Typography of programs Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-02 15:45 +0100
        Re: Typography of programs gordonb.piror@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-07-02 07:31 -0500
          Re: Typography of programs Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-07-03 01:47 -0700
        Re: Typography of programs Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-03 03:10 -0700
          Re: Typography of programs superpollo <superpollo@tznvy.pbz> - 2011-07-04 15:19 +0200
        Re: Typography of programs "Herbert Rosenau" <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> - 2011-07-03 19:39 +0000
          Re: Typography of programs "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-07-03 14:01 -0700
            Re: Typography of programs Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-03 14:26 -0700
              Re: Typography of programs "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-07-04 01:19 -0700
                Re: Typography of programs Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-07-04 14:19 -0700
          Re: Typography of programs Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-07-03 20:46 -0700
            Re: Typography of programs Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-07-04 04:42 +0000
            Re: Typography of programs Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-07-04 00:43 -0500
              Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-03 23:03 -0700
                Re: Typography of programs James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-07-04 06:32 -0400
                Re: Typography of programs Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-07-04 09:08 -0500
            Re: Typography of programs Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-07-07 18:01 +0300
    Re: Typography of programs Dr Nick <3-nospam@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2011-07-02 16:28 +0100
    Re: Typography of programs pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2011-07-02 20:52 +0000
      Re: Typography of programs Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2011-07-04 00:50 -0500
    Re: Typography of programs "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-07-03 10:04 +0200
      Re: Typography of programs "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-07-03 10:27 +0200
    Re: Typography of programs Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-03 03:19 -0700
    Re: Typography of programs "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-07-06 10:14 +0100
      Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-06 02:48 -0700
        Re: Typography of programs "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-07-06 11:47 +0100
          Re: Typography of programs jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-07-06 14:46 +0200
            Re: Typography of programs China Blue Dolls <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-07-06 07:44 -0700
            Re: Typography of programs Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-07-07 07:50 +1200

Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]

#7564

On 03-Jul-11 22:46, Michael Press wrote:
> In article <wmzsGguTDN6N-pn2-42Lb9YwNMBKz@JUPITER.PC-ROSENAU.DE>,
>  "Herbert Rosenau" <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> wrote:
>> Ha, I need the § sign when I cdo write my lawayer, and öäüÜÄÖß while 
>> native german and I don't like to change the keyboard only because I 
>> have time to edit on C sources.
> 
> Diacritical marks are for people who do not 
> remember how to pronounce their own language.

In three languages I'm familiar with, the presence or absence of a mark
can change from one valid pronunciation to another or even the entire
meaning of a word.  Perhaps they're superfluous in some languages (e.g.
English), but not all.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7568

In article <iurju8$54l$1@dont-email.me>, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> 
wrote:

> On 03-Jul-11 22:46, Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <wmzsGguTDN6N-pn2-42Lb9YwNMBKz@JUPITER.PC-ROSENAU.DE>,
> >  "Herbert Rosenau" <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> wrote:
> >> Ha, I need the § sign when I cdo write my lawayer, and öäüÜÄÖß while 
> >> native german and I don't like to change the keyboard only because I 
> >> have time to edit on C sources.
> > 
> > Diacritical marks are for people who do not 
> > remember how to pronounce their own language.
> 
> In three languages I'm familiar with, the presence or absence of a mark
> can change from one valid pronunciation to another or even the entire
> meaning of a word.  Perhaps they're superfluous in some languages (e.g.
> English), but not all.

English needs to mark stress and few extra letters like edh and thorn.

-- 
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]

#7584

On 07/04/2011 02:03 AM, China Blue Dolls wrote:
...
> English needs to mark stress and few extra letters like edh and thorn.

If it's actually "needed", then why is the overwhelming majority of
English text completely free of both stress marks and those extra
letters? Whatever purpose that it's "needed" to achieve is apparently
not being achieved - is it an important one?
-- 
James Kuyper

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7589

On 04-Jul-11 01:03, China Blue Dolls wrote:
> In article <iurju8$54l$1@dont-email.me>, Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> 
> wrote:
>> On 03-Jul-11 22:46, Michael Press wrote:
>>> Diacritical marks are for people who do not 
>>> remember how to pronounce their own language.
>>
>> In three languages I'm familiar with, the presence or absence of a mark
>> can change from one valid pronunciation to another or even the entire
>> meaning of a word.  Perhaps they're superfluous in some languages (e.g.
>> English), but not all.
> 
> English needs to mark stress

No, it does not.  Words spelled the same but distinguished by stress are
differentiated by context, though sometimes that fails humorously.

> and few extra letters like edh and thorn.

Those are distinct letters, not diacritical marks.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7843

Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> writes:
> In article <wmzsGguTDN6N-pn2-42Lb9YwNMBKz@JUPITER.PC-ROSENAU.DE>,
>  "Herbert Rosenau" <os2guy@pc-rosenau.de> wrote:
> 
> > Ha, I need the § sign when I cdo write my lawayer, and öäüÜÄÖß while 
> > native german and I don't like to change the keyboard only because I 
> > have time to edit on C sources.
> 
> Diacritical marks are for people who do not 
> remember how to pronounce their own language.

Not in the last 4 languages I've surrounded myself with.
Addition or removal of diacritical marks could theoretically
turn one word into a different word with an identical syntactic
role.

Phil
-- 
"At least you know where you are with Microsoft."
"True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle." -- Matthew Vernon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7467

jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> writes:

> We could have in some isoXXX.h
> #define ≠ !=
> #define ⋀ and
> #define ⋁ or

You know, there's quite some difference between && and ⋀ and between ||
and ⋁ - shortcutting in particular.

> #define ≤ <=
> #define ≥ >=
>
> etc.

That "etc." leaves a lot open.  How about replacing sqrt( with √ ?

Do you want to replace << and >> with « and » as well or will that confuse some
people?

> Using ← for assignment would avoid the common beginner's error of
> using = instead of == and programs would look less horrible.

why not replace == with ≡ while you are at it?

> All this would be done first in output only to avoid requiring a new C
> keyboard even though that can be done later. You would still type !=
> but you would obtain ≠ in output in the same way that you type first the
> accent, then the later under the accent and you obtain one character.

Surely that's an editor independent thing and nothing to do with the
language.  I entered the last of these, for example, by typing "Alt-x,
ucs-insert [return], identical to"
-- 
Online waterways route planner            | http://canalplan.eu
Plan trips, see photos, check facilities  | http://canalplan.org.uk

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7471

In article <iugem2$np3$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
jacob navia  <jacob@jspamsink.org> wrote:
>
>Actually, when C was conceived there weren't any bit mapped graphics
>or any such hardware that we now consider common place.
>
>The typography of C remained the same, as all other computer languages,
>obsessed with the character sets from 32 to 127 ASCII codes. Then, we
>write != instead of the inequality sign, = instead of the assignment
>arrow, "&&" instead of /\,  "||" instead of \/.

When those symbols were conceived, there weren't any computers. There
wasn't any limit to the number of different squiggles that could be put
down on paper because people were doing it with pens (and, I assume,
periodically venturing out to kill a squid for the ink and a bird for
the feather). Now we have keyboards, which allow us to write much
faster.

>
>Programs would be clearer if we would use today's hardware to show
>the usual signs, instead of constructs adapted to the teletype
>typewriter of the seventies.

Programs would be clearer if we would get rid of some excess punctuation
characters (ASCII has 33 of them, that's too many already). Like the
backslash. What the hell is a backslash anyway? It's not even a real
punctuation mark. Bob Bemer made it up in the middle of the 20th century
and it's been confusing and annoying people ever since.

In summary:

Have you ever considered that maybe the biggest symbol set isn't
automatically the best?

-- 
Alan Curry

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7566

On 02-Jul-11 15:52, Alan Curry wrote:
> Have you ever considered that maybe the biggest symbol set isn't
> automatically the best?

Try telling that to the nice folks over at the Unicode Consortium--or
the populations of China and Japan.

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7486

"jacob navia" <jacob@spamsink.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:iugem2$np3$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>I am learning the Macintosh environment with the idea of porting the IDE We
>have in iso646.h
> #define and     &&
> #define and_eq  &=
> #define bitand  &
> #define bitor   |
> #define compl   ~
>
> We could have in some isoXXX.h
> #define ? !=
> #define ? and
> #define ? or
> #define ? <=
> #define ? >=

i have in this sys some set of chars [almost all]
that are of 16 bits, where its seems that ascii are one subset

for example the char '=' ascii 0x3D it seem here has the
16 bit rapresentation 0x003D
'a'  0x61 has 16 bits rapresentation 0x0061

So with this sys your define has to work if the compiler is ok in
processing the 16 bit ascii char subset of the 16 bit chars
and the 16 bit char define is without bug

if '=' is less or the same '<=' char here 0x2264
i hope this message is sent as 16 bit char

here the 16 bit char program
#include <stdio.h>
#define  u8   unsigned char
#define  u32  unsigned
#define  =    <=

int main(void)
{u32   a, b;

 a=4; b=9;
 if(a = b) printf("Yes\n");
 else    printf("No\n");
 return  0;
}

compile and run and print yes
but if i write
 if(a= b) printf("Yes\n");
or
 if(a =b) printf("Yes\n");
or
 if(a=b) printf("Yes\n");
the define not replace the '?' char
and because it is not in the subset ascii
the program do right to not compile...

i think it is a little bug in the 16 bit 'define' functions
that has need spaces for make the change of char 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7487

"io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:4e102232$0$15665$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it...
>
> "jacob navia" <jacob@spamsink.net> ha scritto nel messaggio
> news:iugem2$np3$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>>I am learning the Macintosh environment with the idea of porting the IDE We
>>have in iso646.h
>> #define and     &&
>> #define and_eq  &=
>> #define bitand  &
>> #define bitor   |
>> #define compl   ~
>>
>> We could have in some isoXXX.h
>> #define ? !=
>> #define ? and
>> #define ? or
>> #define ? <=
>> #define ? >=
>
> i have in this sys some set of chars [almost all]
> that are of 16 bits, where its seems that ascii are one subset
>
> for example the char '=' ascii 0x3D it seem here has the
> 16 bit rapresentation 0x003D
> 'a'  0x61 has 16 bits rapresentation 0x0061
>
> So with this sys your define has to work if the compiler is ok in
> processing the 16 bit ascii char subset of the 16 bit chars
> and the 16 bit char define is without bug
>
> if '=' is less or the same '<=' char here 0x2264
> i hope this message is sent as 16 bit char
>
> here the 16 bit char program
> #include <stdio.h>
> #define  u8   unsigned char
> #define  u32  unsigned
> #define  =    <=
>
> int main(void)
> {u32   a, b;
>
> a=4; b=9;
> if(a = b) printf("Yes\n");
> else    printf("No\n");
> return  0;
> }
>
> compile and run and print yes
> but if i write
> if(a= b) printf("Yes\n");
> or
> if(a =b) printf("Yes\n");
> or
> if(a=b) printf("Yes\n");
> the define not replace the '?' char
> and because it is not in the subset ascii
> the program do right to not compile...
>
> i think it is a little bug in the 16 bit 'define' functions
> that has need spaces for make the change of char

now i realize, i understand, it is not a define functions bug because
"a\0x2264 b" is seen as
       one word of   2 16 bit char and
       one word of one 16 bit char
so exuse me; all is ok
for to be possible the replacement in
if(a\0x2264b) printf("Yes\n");
define, compiler, all
has to see \0x2264 as a special char
a char that here i call in the set of "punctuation" as
{,.;=\+-^|!*[]()# etc etc}
and these chars have to be special as 'define' chars

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7491

On Jun 30, 1:06 am, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote:

<snip>

> [...] when C was conceived there weren't any bit mapped graphics
> or any such hardware that we now consider common place.
>
> The typography of C remained the same, as all other computer languages,
> obsessed with the character sets from 32 to 127 ASCII codes.

Algol-60 allowed for different reprentations of the text. Algol-60 was
intended to be published with proper "not equal" "not" "and" "or" etc.

It's just taken 50 years for the rest of the world to catch up.


> Then, we
> write != instead of the inequality sign, = instead of the assignment
> arrow, "&&" instead of /\,  "||" instead of \/.

<snip>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7741

"jacob navia" <jacob@spamsink.net> wrote in message
news:iugem2$np3$1@speranza.aioe.org...

> The typography of C remained the same, as all other computer languages,
> obsessed with the character sets from 32 to 127 ASCII codes. Then, we
> write != instead of the inequality sign, = instead of the assignment
> arrow, "&&" instead of /\,  "||" instead of \/.

That latter I agree with, those V's and up-side-down V's always confused
me...

> Programs would be clearer if we would use today's hardware to show
> the usual signs, instead of constructs adapted to the teletype
> typewriter of the seventies.
>
> Unicode now offers all possible signs for displaying in our programs,
> and it would be a progress if C would standardize some codes to be
> used isnstead of the usual != and &&, etc.

> We could have in some isoXXX.h
> #define ≠ !=
> #define ⋀ and
> #define ⋁ or
> #define ≤ <=
> #define ≥ >=

> Using ← for assignment would avoid the common beginner's error of using =
> instead of == and programs would look less horrible.
>

This sounds great but I don't think it's the way to go at present. And where
would you stop with typography? Would you also use different fonts, styles
and colours to distinguish keywords, user identifiers, and library
functions, for example?

Or have comments in italics so that you don't need that ugly /* ... */
bracketing?

A proper square root symbol? Superscripts for raising to the power of?
Subscripts for array indexing? The proper signs for multiplication and
division (and even arranging a/b vertically)? Etc.

Besides my keyboard doesn't have any of those symbols.

> All this would be done first in output only to avoid requiring a new C
> keyboard even though that can be done later. You would still type !=
> but you would obtain ≠ in output in the same way that you type first the
> accent, then the later under the accent and you obtain one character.

I think this is the only place for this sort of enhancement: restricted to
the displayed output of an editor or DTP program (and you have the problem
of modern word processors where you'd much rather work on the underlying
'markup' info, in an easy-to-change textual form, than having to directly
edit the final layout. Who wants to use Word 2011 to edit C?

(Having said all that, I admit I worked on a lexical analyzer recently that
does recognise some of those symbols! At least those with codes in the range
128 to 255 of either ANSI or Unicode (I forget which). Such as superscript 2
for the 'square' operator (a²). These look cool but I suspect they'll never 
be used and later will be dropped...)

-- 
Bartc 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7742

In article <iv191c$b2t$1@dont-email.me>, "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

> This sounds great but I don't think it's the way to go at present. And where
> would you stop with typography? Would you also use different fonts, styles
> and colours to distinguish keywords, user identifiers, and library
> functions, for example?

I use roman fonts for comments and gothic for code. I bold case reserved words 
and italicise variables. I can't use background colours, but I sometimes use 
foreground colours for different types of code.

> Or have comments in italics so that you don't need that ugly /* ... */
> bracketing?

Comments are in roman fonts. 

> A proper square root symbol? Superscripts for raising to the power of?
> Subscripts for array indexing? The proper signs for multiplication and
> division (and even arranging a/b vertically)? Etc.

I don't use superscripts because they aren't important in my code. I do use 
subscripts. It helps reduce the visual clutter. I don't use horizontal division 
lines because RTFs don't really support that. I would have to use a table and 
that's more trouble than it's worth.

> Besides my keyboard doesn't have any of those symbols.

My keyboard has a bunch of symbols with the Option key. I can also bring up a 
window with all unicode characters to insert them into the text.

> I think this is the only place for this sort of enhancement: restricted to
> the displayed output of an editor or DTP program (and you have the problem

I use RTFs so that I get the benefit of easier to read code.

> of modern word processors where you'd much rather work on the underlying
> 'markup' info, in an easy-to-change textual form, than having to directly
> edit the final layout. Who wants to use Word 2011 to edit C?

I use XCode and TextEdit. Surely there must be RTF edittors on other systems.

> (Having said all that, I admit I worked on a lexical analyzer recently that
> does recognise some of those symbols! At least those with codes in the range
> 128 to 255 of either ANSI or Unicode (I forget which). Such as superscript 2
> for the 'square' operator (aｩ�). These look cool but I suspect they'll never 
> be used and later will be dropped...)

I convert the RTF to ASCII text before giving it to the compiler. I could also 
use textutil to convert to HTML for a web page. The only thing I reallly miss is 
any easy way to make links and anchors.

-- 
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]

#7745

"China Blue Dolls" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:chine.bleu-8916EE.02483506072011@news.eternal-september.org...
> In article <iv191c$b2t$1@dont-email.me>, "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:

> I use roman fonts for comments and gothic for code. I bold case reserved 
> words
> and italicise variables. I can't use background colours, but I sometimes 
> use
> foreground colours for different types of code.

>> A proper square root symbol? Superscripts for raising to the power of?
>> Subscripts for array indexing? The proper signs for multiplication and
>> division (and even arranging a/b vertically)? Etc.
>
> I don't use superscripts because they aren't important in my code. I do 
> use
> subscripts. It helps reduce the visual clutter. I don't use horizontal 
> division
> lines because RTFs don't really support that. I would have to use a table 
> and
> that's more trouble than it's worth.
>
>> Besides my keyboard doesn't have any of those symbols.
>
> My keyboard has a bunch of symbols with the Option key. I can also bring 
> up a
> window with all unicode characters to insert them into the text.
>
>> I think this is the only place for this sort of enhancement: restricted 
>> to
>> the displayed output of an editor or DTP program (and you have the 
>> problem
>
> I use RTFs so that I get the benefit of easier to read code.

Within the environment of an IDE, or a private development setup, then all 
this and more is possible.

But it doesn't need changes to the language spec as is being proposed; the 
end-result of the editing (or a conversion process as you mention) is 
standard C-compatible ASCII.

-- 
Bartc 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7752

Le 06/07/11 12:47, BartC a écrit :
> "China Blue Dolls" <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:chine.bleu-8916EE.02483506072011@news.eternal-september.org...
>> In article <iv191c$b2t$1@dont-email.me>, "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>
>> I use roman fonts for comments and gothic for code. I bold case
>> reserved words
>> and italicise variables. I can't use background colours, but I
>> sometimes use
>> foreground colours for different types of code.
>
>>> A proper square root symbol? Superscripts for raising to the power of?
>>> Subscripts for array indexing? The proper signs for multiplication and
>>> division (and even arranging a/b vertically)? Etc.
>>
>> I don't use superscripts because they aren't important in my code. I
>> do use
>> subscripts. It helps reduce the visual clutter. I don't use horizontal
>> division
>> lines because RTFs don't really support that. I would have to use a
>> table and
>> that's more trouble than it's worth.
>>
>>> Besides my keyboard doesn't have any of those symbols.
>>
>> My keyboard has a bunch of symbols with the Option key. I can also
>> bring up a
>> window with all unicode characters to insert them into the text.
>>
>>> I think this is the only place for this sort of enhancement:
>>> restricted to
>>> the displayed output of an editor or DTP program (and you have the
>>> problem
>>
>> I use RTFs so that I get the benefit of easier to read code.
>
> Within the environment of an IDE, or a private development setup, then
> all this and more is possible.
>
> But it doesn't need changes to the language spec as is being proposed;
> the end-result of the editing (or a conversion process as you mention)
> is standard C-compatible ASCII.
>

Yes, but special comments would need to be standardized so we could
write formulas and diagrams into commentaries without resorting
to "Ascii art" and drawings. What bothers me is that all the
technology is available but nobody uses it. For instance if
we would set
/*
<html>
</html>
*/

We could use full html editors (or XML or rtf or whatever) to include
in the programs all word processing extensions needed to add all the
necessary features into program text.

The same with the Unicode characters in programs instead of today's
digraphs.

All this proposals do not imply a change in the C la,nguage of course.
Since the diagrams and rich text wuld be enclosed in comments, it
would be transparent to the compiler. The Unicode characters would need
a small change in the compiler front end, or a preprocessor that
translates ≠ into !=

jacob

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#7762

In article <iv1lf3$lt3$1@speranza.aioe.org>, jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> 
wrote:

> Yes, but special comments would need to be standardized so we could
> write formulas and diagrams into commentaries without resorting
> to "Ascii art" and drawings. What bothers me is that all the
> technology is available but nobody uses it. For instance if
> we would set

You can insert images into RTFs (RTFDs on MacOSX) as well including image 
references in HTML.

Typeset formulas aren't supported very well, but you can include formula images.

> All this proposals do not imply a change in the C la,nguage of course.
> Since the diagrams and rich text wuld be enclosed in comments, it
> would be transparent to the compiler. The Unicode characters would need
> a small change in the compiler front end, or a preprocessor that
> translates ≠ into !=

I do more complicated processing to convert RTFs to source, but if you just want 
to use HTML as styled source code, you can do something like

    echo 'puts [regsub -all -nocase {<blockquote>.*?</blockquote>}' \
        '[read [open' \
            source.html \
        ']] {}]' \
    | tclsh \
    | textutil -convert txt -stdin -stdout \
    | sed 's/≤/<=/g;s/≥/=>/g;s/¬/!/g;...' \
    > source.c

and put any comments you don't want in the source.c inside a <blockquote>.

-- 
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]

#7783

On 07/ 7/11 12:46 AM, jacob navia wrote:
> Le 06/07/11 12:47, BartC a écrit :
>>
>> But it doesn't need changes to the language spec as is being proposed;
>> the end-result of the editing (or a conversion process as you mention)
>> is standard C-compatible ASCII.
>>
>
> Yes, but special comments would need to be standardized so we could
> write formulas and diagrams into commentaries without resorting
> to "Ascii art" and drawings. What bothers me is that all the
> technology is available but nobody uses it. For instance if
> we would set
> /*
> <html>
> </html>
> */
>
> We could use full html editors (or XML or rtf or whatever) to include
> in the programs all word processing extensions needed to add all the
> necessary features into program text.
>
> The same with the Unicode characters in programs instead of today's
> digraphs.
>
> All this proposals do not imply a change in the C la,nguage of course.
> Since the diagrams and rich text wuld be enclosed in comments, it
> would be transparent to the compiler. The Unicode characters would need
> a small change in the compiler front end, or a preprocessor that
> translates ≠ into !=
>

A while back I experimented with writing code and documentation together 
in OpenOffice, running a transform over the document XML to extract the 
source code.  While this worked, I soon realised why we have both code 
editors and word processors.  Neither does the other's job particularly 
well.

-- 
Ian Collins

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 6 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web