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 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 23:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <iv38pt$hk7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7759 |
On 07/06/2011 10:00 AM, Rui Maciel wrote: > James Kuyper wrote: > >> Perhaps it's irrelevant to you; but it's of interest to me, particular >> insofar as I lack both sufficient experience with POSIX threads, and >> sufficient understanding of the C201X proposal, to compare them. > > You didn't understand what I said. ... Yes I did, I just don't agree with it. > ... The reason why it is irrelevant to > compare similarities between both APIs is that, It's the differences, not the similarities, that I wanted to compare. > ... as it was acceptable to > create a brand new standard that covers the exact same subject that a widely > establised standard already covers for over a decade, then it would also be > acceptable to update any part of the pre-existing standard which might need > updating. This would simplify the C 201x standardization process a great > deal. If the new C 201x standard simply added somewhere in the text the > following snippet: > > "In ISO/IEC 9899:201x, the support for threads is intended to be in > conjunction with: > - IEEE Std 1003.1c-1995 - POSIX threads API" ... >> If there's any point at all to having a separate C API, it seems to me >> that the C API should have sufficient flexibility to be efficiently >> implementable using either POSIX calls, or Windows calls. That would >> almost certainly not be achievable by simply duplicating the POSIX >> standard. > > You are talking about POSIX threads as if they were some foreign API which > was impossible to implement in any OS. Those concepts were not in my head when I wrote those words, and I can't find them in the words I wrote. I think they're your own invention. You might get a little closer to what I actually meant if you replace "impossible to implement in any OS" with "difficult to implement efficiently for some OSs", but I didn't say anything sufficiently specific to justify even that rewording. > API but also is technically incapable of supporting it. As I've already > pointed out, even Microsoft provides pthreads for the Windows platform. As I've learned from other messages on this thread, Dinkumware created a threading library that heavily influenced the proposal for threading support in the next C standard. They could have simply relied upon Microsoft's implementation of POSIX pthreads, but they chose not to. I don't know what their reasons were for that decision; do you? If so, can you express those reasons in a way that Dinkumware could agree was an accurate description? Your attempt in you message containing the header "Date: 07 Jul 2011 00:21:17 +0100" doesn't qualify. I doubt that they did it out of sheer random spite; if they had a valid reason for doing so, that reason might apply to the C standard as well; the fact that the C committee is considering this proposal suggests that a fair number of committee members think the reasons are valid, which is why I'd be very interested in getting an objective description of those reasons. Somehow, I doubt that you're the best source for that description. Understand - I'm not arguing in favor of this change. I think that there's currently too much overlap between the POSIX and C standards; increasing that overlap seems a move in the wrong direction - but I'm open to the idea that it might be well motivated, and I'm waiting to hear what those motivations might be. > ... So, > knowing this, why do you refer to pthreads as something other than a > standard for implementing threads in a portable and flexible way? I don't; that's just your imagination filling in details incorrectly. -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 22:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iv5t6u$sld$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7759 |
Rui Maciel wrote: > James Kuyper wrote: > >> Perhaps it's irrelevant to you; but it's of interest to me, >> particular insofar as I lack both sufficient experience with POSIX >> threads, and sufficient understanding of the C201X proposal, to >> compare them. > > You didn't understand what I said. The reason why it is irrelevant to > compare similarities between both APIs is that, as it was acceptable > to create a brand new standard that covers the exact same subject > that a widely establised standard already covers for over a decade, > then it would also be acceptable to update any part of the > pre-existing standard which might need updating. This would simplify > the C 201x standardization process a great deal. If the new C 201x > standard simply added somewhere in the text the following snippet: > > "In ISO/IEC 9899:201x, the support for threads is intended to be in > conjunction with: > - IEEE Std 1003.1c-1995 - POSIX threads API" Would that be the final appearance of C on the Windows stage then? "C: exit stage left please, and don't let the curtain call kick your ass on the way out." > > Then the C standard would be leaner, the standardization process > would be simpler and, most importantly, the relevant implementation > details could be cleanly separated from each other. Better yet, dump all libraries from the C standard (they are crappy anyway). Then the standard language and process becomes as lean as can be and let's the committee FOCUS on the minimal support the language needs to provide while allowing opportunities to vendors for innovation. (Maybe then even JN could offer something up and he'd stop hissying! Maybe even I would dust-off and polish-up some old C code I have laying around in the basement (just to spite JN of course ;-)) ).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lawrence.jones@siemens.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 11:32 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <jobee8-aki.ln1@jones.homeip.net> |
| In reply to | #7702 |
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote: > > If there's any point at all to having a separate C API, it seems to me > that the C API should have sufficient flexibility to be efficiently > implementable using either POSIX calls, or Windows calls. That would > almost certainly not be achievable by simply duplicating the POSIX standard. That is exactly the point of the C1X threads API. It was specifically designed (by Dinkumware, who proposed it for inclusion in the Standard) to be easily implemented as a very thin layer on top of either pthreads or Windows threads, allowing multithreaded programs to be easily portable to either system. It does not provide access to all of the features of either system, but it does provide access to the commonly used ones in a portable manner. My understanding is that it is in active use by Dinkumware itself as well as its customers. -- Larry Jones You should see me when I lose in real life! -- Calvin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 10:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <16f6e73c-a67c-4277-a1ec-33e1786542cb@b2g2000vbo.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #7772 |
On Jul 6, 11:32 am, lawrence.jo...@siemens.com wrote: > James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote: > > > If there's any point at all to having a separate C API, it seems to me > > that the C API should have sufficient flexibility to be efficiently > > implementable using either POSIX calls, or Windows calls. That would > > almost certainly not be achievable by simply duplicating the POSIX standard. > > That is exactly the point of the C1X threads API. It was specifically > designed (by Dinkumware, who proposed it for inclusion in the Standard) > to be easily implemented as a very thin layer on top of either pthreads > or Windows threads, allowing multithreaded programs to be easily > portable to either system. If it's so easy to implement, then why not first release a library version to the C community at large to determine whether it has enough pull to create a de-facto standard, and then consider standardization at the language level *if* it's garnered enough interest. > It does not provide access to all of the > features of either system, but it does provide access to the commonly > used ones in a portable manner. My understanding is that it is in > active use by Dinkumware itself as well as its customers. And what percentage of this user group constitutes the C community at large? It's very likely a useful tool, but without a kind of "Boost for C" to evaluate these constructs, the vendor uptake of any new feature is likely to be as sporadic as anything in C99. Where is the evidence that the C community wants this? Granted I have the industry connections of a ostrich with its head stuck in the sand, but a download-able working library might motivate me to get my head out and take a look, try to use it, and if I like it spread the word. I may not be able to contribute to the technical details, but having more widespread positive customer evaluation is a very important source of information, for doing bold things like adding to the C standard. And fortunately (or unfortunately depending on the perspective) the best method to get more widespread evaluation is to release the software for free. Best regards, John D.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 19:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <iv26nh$303$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #7775 |
Le 06/07/11 19:27, ImpalerCore a écrit : > On Jul 6, 11:32 am, lawrence.jo...@siemens.com wrote: >> James Kuyper<jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote: >> >>> If there's any point at all to having a separate C API, it seems to me >>> that the C API should have sufficient flexibility to be efficiently >>> implementable using either POSIX calls, or Windows calls. That would >>> almost certainly not be achievable by simply duplicating the POSIX standard. >> >> That is exactly the point of the C1X threads API. It was specifically >> designed (by Dinkumware, who proposed it for inclusion in the Standard) >> to be easily implemented as a very thin layer on top of either pthreads >> or Windows threads, allowing multithreaded programs to be easily >> portable to either system. > > If it's so easy to implement, then why not first release a library > version to the C community at large to determine whether it has enough > pull to create a de-facto standard, and then consider standardization > at the language level *if* it's garnered enough interest. > >> It does not provide access to all of the >> features of either system, but it does provide access to the commonly >> used ones in a portable manner. My understanding is that it is in >> active use by Dinkumware itself as well as its customers. > > And what percentage of this user group constitutes the C community at > large? It's very likely a useful tool, but without a kind of "Boost > for C" to evaluate these constructs, the vendor uptake of any new > feature is likely to be as sporadic as anything in C99. Where is the > evidence that the C community wants this? > > Granted I have the industry connections of a ostrich with its head > stuck in the sand, but a download-able working library might motivate > me to get my head out and take a look, try to use it, and if I like it > spread the word. I may not be able to contribute to the technical > details, but having more widespread positive customer evaluation is a > very important source of information, for doing bold things like > adding to the C standard. And fortunately (or unfortunately depending > on the perspective) the best method to get more widespread evaluation > is to release the software for free. > > Best regards, > John D. I followed that path for my containers library. I published it also in comp.std.c Nothing from the committee members, not a single commentary. But the library of Plauger it is accepted without any problems even if the specs is full of errors and inconsistencies. I sent a post into comp.std.c with a detailed critique of that specifications, explaining each pointed error. That was 2 years ago. The errors are still there. The only change is that they renamed "o-type" into an "object type". But the problem is that they use terms that they dont define since they just copy/pasted the doc of Plauger. They introduce a lot of types wihout explaining them. As specifications go, I have seen better really.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lawrence.jones@siemens.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 00:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4oofe8-4gl.ln1@jones.homeip.net> |
| In reply to | #7776 |
jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> wrote: > > I followed that path for my containers library. I published it also in > comp.std.c And everyone proclaimed it the most wonderful thing they've ever seen, wondered how they'd gotten along without it all these years, and instantly adopted it, right? > Nothing from the committee members, not a single commentary. For the umpteeth time, the committee does not read comp.std.c or any other newsgroup. > But the library of Plauger it is accepted without any problems > even if the specs is full of errors and inconsistencies. Proposals do not have to be perfect to get adopted into the working draft, they just have to be "good enough" that there is some confidence that the remaining problems can be worked out before the standard is adopted. Including such proposals into the working draft encourages people to comment on them. > I sent a post into comp.std.c with a detailed critique of that > specifications, explaining each pointed error. Too bad you didn't submit it to the committee where it might have done some good. > That was 2 years ago. The errors are still there. The only change > is that they renamed "o-type" into an "object type". That is not correct, there have been a number of changes and corrections. Please see the most recent working draft, N1570. -- Larry Jones This sounds suspiciously like one of Dad's plots to build my character. -- Calvin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 09:24 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <iv3mvp$8c9$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #7808 |
Le 07/07/11 06:19, lawrence.jones@siemens.com a écrit : > jacob navia<jacob@spamsink.net> wrote: >> >> I followed that path for my containers library. I published it also in >> comp.std.c > > And everyone proclaimed it the most wonderful thing they've ever seen, > wondered how they'd gotten along without it all these years, and > instantly adopted it, right? > >> Nothing from the committee members, not a single commentary. > > For the umpteeth time, the committee does not read comp.std.c or any > other newsgroup. > But YOU participated to that discussion and were aware of my criticism. The message you sent in that discussion was sent on June 8 2009 at 11:52pm You can read it here https://groups.google.com/group/comp.std.c/browse_thread/thread/e56830127972f358?hl=en Mr Jones: It is very easy to laugh at me. I have no money to go to your meetings, and the C group in France has disappeared because the AFNOR decided so. It would be more honest to see that I have worked for YEARS (at least ten) to implement C99, to participate in the C community, to make proposals to improve the language, and that I still go on working for the C community. You haven't even read the containers proposals, you have not even bothered to consider the whole idea. You just spread your arrogance around as it was the thing to do. I am not your enemy, but you, apparently, are convinced that you have to crush me at each post.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lawrence.jones@siemens.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-10 16:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <mhepe8-nb1.ln1@jones.homeip.net> |
| In reply to | #7816 |
jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> wrote: > > > But YOU participated to that discussion and were aware of my > criticism. The message you sent in that discussion > was sent on June 8 2009 at 11:52pm Your initial criticism was that you couldn't make any sense out of the proposal because you didn't understand the terminology. Most of those problems have been addressed (although there's certainly more to do). My sole participation was to point you to where you could find committee documents, which you should have already known. > Mr Jones: It is very easy to laugh at me. I have no money to go to your > meetings, and the C group in France has disappeared because the AFNOR > decided so. I'm not laughing at you. I'm frustrated because you keep complaining that the committee doesn't pay any attention to you despite having been told repeatedly that the reason they don't is because you're crying in the wilderness instead of talking to them. I understand your frustration at not having a more convenient (for you) mechanism for communicating with the committee, but what would be more convenient for you would be much less convenient for the committee. You can't afford to attend meetings, we can't afford to read news groups. For what it's worth, *I* pay my own way to the meetings and I'm the project editor! If you can't go to meetings, you can still communicate with the committee through the convenor, but there's very little chance of getting anything adopted without some kind of active participation. > You haven't even read the containers proposals, you have not even > bothered to consider the whole idea. You just spread your arrogance > around as it was the thing to do. I don't recall make any comment on the containers proposal whatsoever. My personal experience with such things is that they're always much more trouble than they're worth, so I have no interest in it one way or the other. If there were a groundswell of support for it here, I might feel a responsibility to bring it to the committee's attention, but I haven't seen any. -- Larry Jones Good gravy, whose side are you on?! -- Calvin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 00:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4e14ef40$0$20924$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #7772 |
lawrence.jones@siemens.com wrote: > That is exactly the point of the C1X threads API. It was specifically > designed (by Dinkumware, who proposed it for inclusion in the Standard) > to be easily implemented as a very thin layer on top of either pthreads > or Windows threads, allowing multithreaded programs to be easily > portable to either system. This argument is absurd, as pthreads was from the start designed with portability in mind and even Microsoft already provides a pthreads implementation. The only reason why Microsoft opted to avoid pthreads and instead go with their home-brew version of a threading API is their pathological reaction to open standards and their need to artificially hinder anything remotely related to portability. Now, by intentionally neglecting a widely adopted international standard for a threading API for the C which which already exists for over a decade, those who push this absurd initiative are essentially forcing the C standardization process to incorporate a dumb approach to a problem which is not technical and instead caused by nothing more than a single company's refusal to respect, let alone follow standards. Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-06 23:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <almarsoft.4766278522765489369@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #7795 |
On Thu, 07 Jul 2011 00:21:17 +0100, Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> wrote: > lawrence.jones@siemens.com wrote: > > That is exactly the point of the C1X threads API. It was specifically > > designed (by Dinkumware, who proposed it for inclusion in the Standard) > > to be easily implemented as a very thin layer on top of either pthreads > > or Windows threads, allowing multithreaded programs to be easily > > portable to either system. > This argument is absurd, as pthreads was from the start designed with > portability in mind and even Microsoft already provides a pthreads > implementation. Or bought one. I believe that Interix was acquired. > The only reason why Microsoft opted to avoid pthreads and > instead go with their home-brew version of a threading API is their > pathological reaction to open standards and their need to artificially > hinder anything remotely related to portability. That doesn't seem quite right. NT has the concept of "subsystems." POSIX is an example of a subsystem. Win32 is another example of a subsystem. It seems natural that pthreads belongs with the POSIX subsystem. Win32 components are mostly compatible with 32-bit, pre-NT Windows, which didn't have subsystems; Windows 95 is an example (16 years ago). > Now, by intentionally neglecting a widely adopted international standard for > a threading API for the C which which already exists for over a decade, > those who push this absurd initiative are essentially forcing the C > standardization process to incorporate a dumb approach to a problem which is > not technical and instead caused by nothing more than a single company's > refusal to respect, let alone follow standards. Which company do you mean?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 00:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <almarsoft.5905286234962793842@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #7802 |
On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 23:20:17 -0400, Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> wrote: > subsystem. Win32 components are mostly compatible with 32-bit, > pre-NT Windows, which didn't have subsystems; Windows 95 is an > example (16 years ago). "Pre-NT" is a mistaken term. What I ought to have written was "non-NT". But anyway, it's all history... That Microsoft developed NT with subsystems (and POSIX support) in the first place doesn't suggest a blatant disregard for standards.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 22:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iv5ut2$49r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7804 |
Shao Miller wrote: > On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 23:20:17 -0400, Shao Miller > <sha0.miller@gmail.com> wrote: >> subsystem. Win32 components are mostly compatible with 32-bit, >> pre-NT Windows, which didn't have subsystems; Windows 95 is an >> example (16 years ago). > > "Pre-NT" is a mistaken term. What I ought to have written was > "non-NT". > > But anyway, it's all history... That Microsoft developed NT with > subsystems (and POSIX support) in the first place doesn't suggest a > blatant disregard for standards. Nor does creating a new API mean malicious intent.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 23:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <ns2d175qnh6m0nu4q00qm3nu9tsv91pn25@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #7930 |
On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 22:52:07 -0500, "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> wrote: >Shao Miller wrote: >> On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 23:20:17 -0400, Shao Miller >> <sha0.miller@gmail.com> wrote: >>> subsystem. Win32 components are mostly compatible with 32-bit, >>> pre-NT Windows, which didn't have subsystems; Windows 95 is an >>> example (16 years ago). >> >> "Pre-NT" is a mistaken term. What I ought to have written was >> "non-NT". >> >> But anyway, it's all history... That Microsoft developed NT with >> subsystems (and POSIX support) in the first place doesn't suggest a >> blatant disregard for standards. > >Nor does creating a new API mean malicious intent. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 01:59 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <iv668d$3jl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7938 |
On 7/8/2011 00:47, Robert Wessel wrote: > On Thu, 7 Jul 2011 22:52:07 -0500, "MikeP"<mp011011@some.org> wrote: > >> Shao Miller wrote: >>> On Wed, 06 Jul 2011 23:20:17 -0400, Shao Miller >>> <sha0.miller@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> subsystem. Win32 components are mostly compatible with 32-bit, >>>> pre-NT Windows, which didn't have subsystems; Windows 95 is an >>>> example (16 years ago). >>> >>> "Pre-NT" is a mistaken term. What I ought to have written was >>> "non-NT". >>> >>> But anyway, it's all history... That Microsoft developed NT with >>> subsystems (and POSIX support) in the first place doesn't suggest a >>> blatant disregard for standards. >> >> Nor does creating a new API mean malicious intent. >> I agree with MikeP on that point and would also suggest that Microsoft doesn't have a "pathological reaction to open standards" nor a "need to artificially hinder anything remotely related to portability." Microsoft has done a lot of stuff. Some of that stuff fits with other stuff, some of it doesn't. Probably all computer stuff can't fit together nicely. Just as a tiny example, it is common in Windows to see a TYPE_NAME and a FunctionThatDoesSomething(). That's been that way for a good while. That alone means pthreads don't fit "nicely." But... I didn't see anything but the above quotations in your response, Mr. R. Wessel. What happened? :)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lawrence.jones@siemens.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 00:22 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <utofe8-4gl.ln1@jones.homeip.net> |
| In reply to | #7795 |
Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> wrote: > > This argument is absurd, as pthreads was from the start designed with > portability in mind and even Microsoft already provides a pthreads > implementation. Yes, and POSIX was from the start designed with portability in mind and even Microsoft already provides a POSIX implementation. And absolutely no one uses it. pthreads was designed for Unix-like systems, period. -- Larry Jones They can make me do it, but they can't make me do it with dignity. -- Calvin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 15:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4e15c33d$0$22156$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #7809 |
lawrence.jones@siemens.com wrote: > Yes, and POSIX was from the start designed with portability in mind and > even Microsoft already provides a POSIX implementation. And absolutely > no one uses it. Where do you base that claim? > pthreads was designed for Unix-like systems, period. What? Do you even know what you are saying? For example, do you actually know what the term "unix-like" refers to? Because even windows fits the description of a "unix-like" system. You see, a unix-like system is a system which conforms to some but not all the requirements stated in the single unix specification. This means that if some OS happens to offer support for pthreads then it automatically enters the category of a unix-like system. Knowing this, your comment boils down to "pthreads was designed for systems which may use pthreads". Do you understand how silly this is? Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-08 08:01 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <97mhltFbcvU3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #7838 |
On 07/ 8/11 02:25 AM, Rui Maciel wrote: > lawrence.jones@siemens.com wrote: > >> Yes, and POSIX was from the start designed with portability in mind and >> even Microsoft already provides a POSIX implementation. And absolutely >> no one uses it. > > Where do you base that claim? > >> pthreads was designed for Unix-like systems, period. > > What? Do you even know what you are saying? For example, do you actually > know what the term "unix-like" refers to? Because even windows fits the > description of a "unix-like" system. Not only windows, a large number of RTOS (all that I use) have a POSIX API. So I agree the statement is silly. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 22:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iv5vag$5ut$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7876 |
Ian Collins wrote: > On 07/ 8/11 02:25 AM, Rui Maciel wrote: >> lawrence.jones@siemens.com wrote: >> >>> Yes, and POSIX was from the start designed with portability in mind >>> and even Microsoft already provides a POSIX implementation. And >>> absolutely no one uses it. >> >> Where do you base that claim? >> >>> pthreads was designed for Unix-like systems, period. >> >> What? Do you even know what you are saying? For example, do you >> actually know what the term "unix-like" refers to? Because even >> windows fits the description of a "unix-like" system. > > Not only windows, a large number of RTOS (all that I use) have a POSIX > API. So I agree the statement is silly. Not silly at all if he meant what I thought he meant. I think you two may have not comprehended what he meant. Please clarify what you meant Lawrence.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "MikeP" <mp011011@some.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-07 22:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <iv5v6c$5gs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #7838 |
Rui Maciel wrote: > lawrence.jones@siemens.com wrote: > >> Yes, and POSIX was from the start designed with portability in mind >> and even Microsoft already provides a POSIX implementation. And >> absolutely no one uses it. > > Where do you base that claim? > > >> pthreads was designed for Unix-like systems, period. > > What? Do you even know what you are saying? For example, do you > actually know what the term "unix-like" refers to? Because even > windows fits the description of a "unix-like" system. > Not to developers. Not to all or even most, anyway. > You see, a unix-like system is a system which conforms to some but > not all the requirements stated in the single unix specification. He said "Unix-like", and I think he meant by that: "Ugly like Unix". > This means that if some OS happens to offer support for pthreads then > it automatically enters the category of a unix-like system. Not to developers. > Knowing > this, your comment boils down to "pthreads was designed for systems > which may use pthreads". Do you understand how silly this is? > Your tangent/strawman is non sequitor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | lawrence.jones@siemens.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-07-10 16:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <46dpe8-ca1.ln1@jones.homeip.net> |
| In reply to | #7838 |
Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> wrote: > lawrence.jones@siemens.com wrote: > > > Yes, and POSIX was from the start designed with portability in mind and > > even Microsoft already provides a POSIX implementation. And absolutely > > no one uses it. > > Where do you base that claim? On the fact that I've never heard a single person say they use it. On the other hand, I've heard lots of people say they use cygwin, which is very similar. > What? Do you even know what you are saying? For example, do you actually > know what the term "unix-like" refers to? Because even windows fits the > description of a "unix-like" system. Invoking Humpty Dumpty, when I use the phrase it means a system derived from Unix or specifically designed to emulate it. That would include all the commercial versions of Unix, the various BSDs, and Linux. It does not include radically different systems that have emulation subsystems or libraries that provide a unix-like environment that is not compatible with the native environment specifically to allow porting Unix programs with minimal change or being checklist compatible with requirements to provide POSIX like VMS or Windows. -- Larry Jones Archaeologists have the most mind-numbing job on the planet. -- Calvin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web