Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #11845 > unrolled thread
| Started by | scs@eskimo.com (Steve Summit) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-10-18 00:00 +0000 |
| Last post | 2011-10-27 00:18 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 291 — 52 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation scs@eskimo.com (Steve Summit) - 2011-10-18 00:00 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Uno <Uno@example.invalid> - 2011-10-18 05:20 -0600
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-11-11 23:51 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Dann Corbit <dcorbit@connx.com> - 2011-10-18 14:37 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-19 10:52 +1300
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "James" <no@spam.invalid> - 2011-10-18 16:47 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-19 00:02 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Bill Davy" <Bill@SynectixLtd.com> - 2011-10-19 08:57 +0100
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-19 02:13 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-10-19 13:41 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-20 00:04 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-10-19 15:32 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-10-19 09:57 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Frederick Williams <freddywilliams@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-19 20:46 +0100
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation 88888 dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-10-19 13:06 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-10-19 20:49 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2011-10-19 19:04 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2011-10-20 07:43 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Frederick Williams <freddywilliams@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-21 16:56 +0100
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "sadsailor" <overboard@the.oceans> - 2011-10-21 16:37 -0500
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-10-21 17:17 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2011-10-21 13:30 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-22 07:57 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation bks@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) - 2011-10-22 15:51 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-10-22 18:19 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-23 08:00 +1300
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Frederick Williams <freddywilliams@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-23 15:39 +0100
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-23 05:55 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-23 21:30 +0100
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-10-23 14:27 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-23 10:28 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-23 08:36 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Charles Richmond" <netnews@aquaporin4.com> - 2011-10-23 23:21 -0500
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Charles Richmond" <netnews@aquaporin4.com> - 2011-10-23 23:21 -0500
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Charles Richmond" <netnews@aquaporin4.com> - 2011-10-23 23:23 -0500
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-10-23 12:35 -0500
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-23 14:01 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-10-23 14:34 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-10-23 13:49 -0600
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-23 18:14 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-24 01:59 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-24 06:25 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-10-24 14:43 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-24 09:01 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation André Gillibert <MetaEntropy.removeThis@gmail.com> - 2011-10-24 18:23 +0200
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-25 08:02 +1300
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-25 00:44 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-10-25 21:24 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-26 00:58 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-26 23:21 +1300
OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-10-29 06:56 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Markus Wichmann <nullplan@gmx.net> - 2011-10-29 21:18 +0200
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-30 10:43 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-31 02:26 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 08:43 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 03:11 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 08:17 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 06:16 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-11-28 00:23 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-27 23:57 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-28 00:20 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-11-29 23:36 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-30 12:42 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-30 10:46 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-12-01 23:20 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-02 12:39 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-12-02 00:42 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-02 13:45 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-12-02 00:57 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-12-02 08:49 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-12-02 17:45 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-11-30 21:42 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-30 22:59 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C Quentin Pope <qp19433@hotmail.NOSPAM.com> - 2011-11-30 22:09 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-01 11:20 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-12-01 00:21 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-01 01:22 -0800
Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2011-12-01 10:18 +0000
Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-01 04:57 -0800
Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2011-12-02 08:34 +0000
Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-12-01 13:38 +0000
Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-01 13:47 -0800
Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2011-12-02 08:10 +0000
Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-12-02 17:48 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-30 18:35 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-12-01 02:53 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-12-01 07:07 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-12-04 00:35 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-12-03 18:28 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-11-30 14:10 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-12-01 00:15 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-01 12:21 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-12-01 00:29 +0100
Operator overloading extensions (Was re: OOP and C++ and C) "Joel C. Salomon" <joelcsalomon@gmail.com> - 2011-12-01 15:50 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-12-01 07:38 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-01 20:26 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-30 18:37 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-01 02:05 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-12-01 07:09 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C Markus Wichmann <nullplan@gmx.net> - 2011-11-01 10:13 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 23:02 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-01 04:04 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 08:45 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-01 09:25 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 09:30 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-01 12:59 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 10:30 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-01 14:33 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 13:10 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-01 16:37 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 13:44 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-01 21:03 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-01 16:26 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-11-03 02:38 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 22:53 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-03 16:03 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-30 01:07 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-30 21:22 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-30 04:41 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-30 08:40 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-30 10:56 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-31 03:03 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-31 02:59 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-30 07:56 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-30 08:13 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-30 18:05 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-30 11:38 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-31 07:56 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 01:11 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-31 21:34 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 08:36 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 07:37 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-31 06:55 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 06:08 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-31 10:42 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 07:56 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-31 12:54 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 07:47 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-30 19:46 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 01:49 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-31 15:15 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 09:01 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-31 18:04 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 11:56 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-01 03:03 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 09:18 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 09:39 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 09:54 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 10:11 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-01 03:22 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 23:08 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 09:04 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 09:26 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 09:37 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 10:01 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 07:59 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 09:52 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 17:25 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-01 21:44 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 07:07 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-30 08:33 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-30 18:00 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-31 03:20 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-10-31 20:07 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 13:48 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-31 22:18 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-01 03:59 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 22:52 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 04:27 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-01 18:56 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 12:59 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-01 16:46 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 14:16 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-01 21:35 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 08:22 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-02 10:14 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 12:09 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) jameskuyper <jameskuyper@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 13:11 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 15:01 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-02 22:11 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 15:32 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-02 21:31 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-03 07:41 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 19:58 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2011-11-02 21:45 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-02 14:26 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-02 11:07 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-03 12:51 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-03 06:36 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-03 14:34 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-03 08:41 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-04 03:30 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-04 09:03 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-04 09:24 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-04 09:44 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-09 00:06 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-09 00:03 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-09 10:57 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-10 09:13 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-10 11:05 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-10 13:23 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-10 14:47 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-11-11 00:17 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-11 09:29 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-11 18:05 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-11-11 18:19 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-11 13:28 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-11-11 18:37 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-11 14:13 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-11 11:17 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-11 21:49 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-11-11 22:11 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-11 14:19 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-12 02:50 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-12 01:44 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-12 17:54 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-12 11:38 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-14 02:36 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-14 16:01 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 10:40 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-14 18:36 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 11:51 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 12:08 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-14 20:25 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 13:11 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-14 21:46 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 14:56 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-14 23:01 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 15:50 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-15 02:48 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-15 08:52 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-11-14 20:15 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-15 02:48 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 14:17 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-14 22:38 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-11-14 14:45 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 15:21 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-14 23:40 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 15:59 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-11-14 12:16 -0600
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-11-14 18:25 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-11 14:15 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-11 23:53 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-11 16:16 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-11 19:53 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-11 12:02 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-14 02:05 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 08:36 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-10 17:00 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-11 04:53 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-11 09:27 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-12 04:27 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-10 23:00 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-10 15:10 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-11 03:30 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-11 00:41 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-12 05:14 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2011-11-21 02:39 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-30 11:00 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-10-30 19:09 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-30 11:51 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-30 20:36 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-10-24 12:16 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-10-25 20:30 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-10-24 15:52 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-10-24 21:40 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201110.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-10-26 06:13 +0200
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-26 01:34 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-10-26 09:47 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201110.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-10-27 04:54 +0200
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation luser- -droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> - 2011-10-27 11:27 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation AK <anoopkammaran@gmail.com> - 2011-10-20 00:01 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2011-10-20 07:50 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2011-10-20 11:07 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-10-20 16:31 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-20 11:13 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-10-20 11:43 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-10-21 08:35 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-21 02:45 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation André Gillibert <MetaEntropy.removeThis@gmail.com> - 2011-10-24 18:41 +0200
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-10-25 14:06 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-10-25 10:13 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Charles Richmond" <netnews@aquaporin4.com> - 2011-10-20 21:58 -0500
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Charles Richmond" <netnews@aquaporin4.com> - 2011-10-20 21:52 -0500
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-10-23 10:32 +0200
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-23 05:58 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2011-10-20 07:40 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-10-25 10:19 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-26 01:53 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-10-26 14:40 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-27 00:18 -0700
Page 7 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 15 Next page →
| From | nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-30 10:56 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <9d477247-c9c7-4f61-930a-57806df1dc40@f3g2000pri.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12284 |
On Oct 30, 4:41 am, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On Oct 30, 10:22 am, Ian Collins <ian-n...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > Where is "all the complexity in interfacing" introduced when using a > > vector of whatever in place of a raw array? As you state, the > > complexity is significantly reduced by automatic memory management. > Couple things on this... > In C, typically functions that operate on a list will take a pointer > to an array of structures, and a count. There's then a loop from 0 to > count stepping through the array. Why would a C developer write a function that operates on a list but takes an array? > In C++ standard template library, the standard way is to pass in two > iterators, one to the start and one to the end of the sequence. The > iterator is then incremented until it equals the end point. This is if you're writing function templates that need to operate on generic containers. If you are writing a function that operates on a particular instance you generally simply pass the container by reference and use its members to get the information you need to perform your algorithm. > The C++ way is considerably more complicated, both in terms of what > the compiler is actually doing, and to use. The proof is that it's > very common to see functions written "incorrectly". Please explain the former claim. What that the compiler is doing is more complicated here? I would tend to intuit that it would be exactly the opposite as the compiler would generally translate the index version into the iterator version. As to more complicated to use, I just don't see it. Can you give an example of an incorrectly written function?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-31 03:03 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <41e235db-8af7-4a95-9cea-7c67844532c5@hj4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12296 |
On Oct 30, 5:56 pm, nroberts <roberts.n...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 30, 4:41 am, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com> > > In C, typically functions that operate on a list will take a pointer > > to an array of structures, and a count. There's then a loop from 0 to > > count stepping through the array. > > Why would a C developer write a function that operates on a list but > takes an array? people use the term "list" in "shopping list" mode. The mean a collection of things (possibly ordered) not necessarily the CS term "linked list". In a sense they are being /more/ abstract!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-31 02:59 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <9d3a55b1-1b17-47c4-a06d-69616d6e2a8d@m19g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12284 |
On Oct 30, 11:41 am, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On Oct 30, 10:22 am, Ian Collins <ian-n...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Where is "all the complexity in interfacing" introduced when using a > > vector of whatever in place of a raw array? As you state, the > > complexity is significantly reduced by automatic memory management. > > In C, typically functions that operate on a list will take a pointer > to an array of structures, and a count. There's then a loop from 0 to > count stepping through the array. you can do the same with a C++ vector except you don't have to explicitly pass the size. > In C++ standard template library, the standard way is to pass in two > iterators, one to the start and one to the end of the sequence. The > iterator is then incremented until it equals the end point. > > The C++ way is considerably more complicated, both in terms of what > the compiler is actually doing, and to use. The proof is that it's > very common to see functions written "incorrectly". >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-30 07:56 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <08cbb555-c844-4b6b-9a45-8dd78be73033@y36g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12277 |
On Oct 30, 8:07 am, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com> wrote: > On Oct 29, 8:56 am, Jorgen Grahn <grahn+n...@snipabacken.se> wrote:> On Wed, 2011-10-26, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > > > You're doing object-oriented design when your objects have > > > relationships to each other, in C++ class hierarchies, in other > > > languages interfaces. > > > I accept that object-oriented programming (as Stroustrup defines it, > > at least) includes run-time polymorphism. But let's say I do my design, > > look for places where a "is-a" relationship is the best solution -- > > and I don't find any. Am I suddenly not doing object-oriented design? > > > Because that's what happens to me in practice. Less than 5% of my > > classes do run-time polymorphism. > > Let's say you examine your program, and find that there are no logical > subroutines you can break out of the main loop. Are you still doing > structured programming? > > > > And C++ doesn't buy you much. > > > I work in both languages and I can assure you: it *does* make a big > > difference. Not the inheritence, but all the other features. > > I don't find it does. > > I find that typically my programs are structured as arrays of arrays > of arrays, mainly of structures at the upper levels. what? How can your *program* be structured as "arrays of arrays...". My programs are hierarchies of function calls. Nearly a tree but most likely a DAG. Did you mean your data structures are strcts containing arrays? Seems very limited. > Where I need more > complex structures, quite often special links are needed for > performance, or for the algorithm. So in both cases the use of fancy > containers doesn't make much sense. the STL containers have pretty good performance. > I'm not saying it wouldn't help if > there was a way of avoiding the little realloc dance when resizing a C > array, but this small benefit doesn't justify all the complexity in > interfacing that use of containers introduces. *what* compilcation. int a [10]; int b [10]; a[0] = 27; a[1] = a[2]; memcpy (b, a, 10); std::vector<int> v1(10); std::vector<int> v2(10); v1[0] = 27; v1[1] = v1[2]; memcpy (&v2[0], &v1[0], 10); I don't see the problem. > I know that in the C++ > stl you can do everything with iterators, the problem is that most > programmers aren't disciplined enough to use the system. but you don't have to. Why does it matter if they don't?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-30 08:13 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <3d3b55f0-8b76-42c3-aa18-c1d34afd7dcf@h5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12288 |
On Oct 30, 4:56 pm, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 30, 8:07 am, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com> > > > I know that in the C++ > > stl you can do everything with iterators, the problem is that most > > programmers aren't disciplined enough to use the system. > > but you don't have to. Why does it matter if they don't? > Think of the data elements as plugs and the functions as sockets. Not every plug will fit every socket. As you multiply plugs and sockets, the system gradually becomes harder and harder to understand, use, and change. That's why the standard template library tries to be a sort of adapter that will hold any plug. But the system only works if everyone writes all their functions to take iterators. In practice, people don't, for a variety of reasons. So you end up with an even more complicated welter of plugs and sockets than you had before. -- C programming resources: Basic Algorithms now available in both print and electronic editions http://www.malcolmmclean.site11.com/www
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-30 18:05 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <0.03a3248a4c973b01bd93.20111030180531GMT.87mxcifj84.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #12290 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > On Oct 30, 4:56 pm, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> > wrote: >> On Oct 30, 8:07 am, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com> >> >> > I know that in the C++ >> > stl you can do everything with iterators, the problem is that most >> > programmers aren't disciplined enough to use the system. >> >> but you don't have to. Why does it matter if they don't? >> > Think of the data elements as plugs and the functions as sockets. > > Not every plug will fit every socket. As you multiply plugs and > sockets, the system gradually becomes harder and harder to understand, > use, and change. > > That's why the standard template library tries to be a sort of adapter > that will hold any plug. But the system only works if everyone writes > all their functions to take iterators. In practice, people don't, for > a variety of reasons. So you end up with an even more complicated > welter of plugs and sockets than you had before. How does C solve this problem of having a great may data types and badly written (i.e. overly specific) function interfaces? <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-30 11:38 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <2b7e90ad-415d-4b18-a0bc-17f79054f560@p16g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12299 |
On Oct 30, 8:05 pm, Ben Bacarisse <ben.use...@bsb.me.uk> wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com> writes: > > How does C solve this problem of having a great may data types and badly > written (i.e. overly specific) function interfaces? > It doesn't really solve the problem. One of the most dangerous features of C is the ability to typedef a basic type to something like, say DWORD. Then you find yourself rewriting perfectly good code, just because someone decided to put DWORDs where they really meant "int", and the code no longer runs under the particular operating system where DWORDs are used. But it alleviates it, because it's easy to write a function that operates on lists (a list is an ordered collection, usually of like items) as taking an array and a count. It's hard to do anything fancier, like wrapping the list into a structure with a "length" member, creating a linked list, or semi-hardcoding the length of the array with a preprocessor define. So the plugs might not fit the sockets, but at least all the sockets are set up in a similar way. Once you start allowing containers, that simplicity goes. -- Lots of programming resources http://www.malcolmmclean.site11.com/www
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-31 07:56 +1300 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <9h5kvkFgakU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #12303 |
On 10/31/11 07:38 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Oct 30, 8:05 pm, Ben Bacarisse<ben.use...@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >> Malcolm McLean<malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com> writes: >> >> How does C solve this problem of having a great may data types and badly >> written (i.e. overly specific) function interfaces? >> > It doesn't really solve the problem. One of the most dangerous > features of C is the ability to typedef a basic type to something > like, say DWORD. Then you find yourself rewriting perfectly good code, > just because someone decided to put DWORDs where they really meant > "int", and the code no longer runs under the particular operating > system where DWORDs are used. Conditionally typedef depending on the platform? > But it alleviates it, because it's easy to write a function that > operates on lists (a list is an ordered collection, usually of like > items) as taking an array and a count. It's hard to do anything > fancier, like wrapping the list into a structure with a "length" > member, creating a linked list, or semi-hardcoding the length of the > array with a preprocessor define. So the plugs might not fit the > sockets, but at least all the sockets are set up in a similar way. > > Once you start allowing containers, that simplicity goes. Once again, how? Is void f( std::vector<int>& ); more complex than void f( int*, size_t ); ? With a container, the size information is embedded, no need to pass a count (which you would have to manually track). From where I sit, the container removes at least two bits of complexity: you don't have to track a size and you don't have to worry about a null pointer. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-31 01:11 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <04f0a91d-abd6-4520-82ca-8535d876bf62@l5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12304 |
On Oct 30, 8:56 pm, Ian Collins <ian-n...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > Once again, how? Is > > void f( std::vector<int>& ); > > more complex than > > void f( int*, size_t ); > > ? > > With a container, the size information is embedded, no need to pass a > count (which you would have to manually track). From where I sit, the > container removes at least two bits of complexity: you don't have to > track a size and you don't have to worry about a null pointer. > You have to use std::vectors everywhere with the C++ version, if you want to call f. You have to use arrays of ints everywhere with the C version if you want to do the same. The C situation will happen, the C++ situation won't. Snippets don't really illustrate the problem very well. Computer programs begin to break down when complexity gets beyond a certain level, and a human can no longer keep track of all the variables and types within the program. Tagging an array with a size member is a genuine advantage of a vector. The cost is that it becomes harder to see what the compiler is doing. Another problem is that, often, code ends up being written with vect.size() rather than N, which makes the expressions unreadable. Loss of the null pointer isn't such an advantage. I've seen C++ code with "null objects" to get round the problem that sometimes things are missing and we need to express "not there". -- C programming resources http://www.malcolmmclean.site11.com/www
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-31 21:34 +1300 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <9h74skF67tU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #12323 |
On 10/31/11 09:11 PM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Oct 30, 8:56 pm, Ian Collins<ian-n...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> Once again, how? Is >> >> void f( std::vector<int>& ); >> >> more complex than >> >> void f( int*, size_t ); >> >> ? >> >> With a container, the size information is embedded, no need to pass a >> count (which you would have to manually track). From where I sit, the >> container removes at least two bits of complexity: you don't have to >> track a size and you don't have to worry about a null pointer. >> > You have to use std::vectors everywhere with the C++ version, if you > want to call f. You have to use arrays of ints everywhere with the C > version if you want to do the same. > > The C situation will happen, the C++ situation won't. Eh? If you want to call a function that requires a specific type, you have to use that type irrespective of the language. > Snippets don't really illustrate the problem very well. Computer > programs begin to break down when complexity gets beyond a certain > level, and a human can no longer keep track of all the variables and > types within the program. Which is where encapsulation is the programmer's friend, it helps to reduce the complexity exposed to the programmer. > Tagging an array with a size member is a genuine advantage of a > vector. The cost is that it becomes harder to see what the compiler is > doing. In all but the most basic situations, the programmer lost track of what the compiler is doing when compilers grew optimisers. > Another problem is that, often, code ends up being written with > vect.size() rather than N, which makes the expressions unreadable. You've lost me there, what is N? If in the the size of an array, doesn't all the additional code used to track it do far more to make the code hard to follow? container.size() is very idiomatic in C++, so its use doesn't cause any readability issues. If you do want to simplify an expression, just an a "const size_t n = vect.size();" before the expression. This is no worse than keeping taps of an array's length - you just keep table at the last moment! > Loss of the null pointer isn't such an advantage. I've seen C++ code > with "null objects" to get round the problem that sometimes things are > missing and we need to express "not there". You'll see kludges an any language! Null objects are an abomination and anyone using them should be tarred and feathered by their peers. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-31 08:36 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <3ea995c1-7cf4-4669-8508-4a11304844d8@r2g2000vbj.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12324 |
On Oct 31, 1:34 am, Ian Collins <ian-n...@hotmail.com> wrote: > You'll see kludges an any language! Null objects are an abomination and > anyone using them should be tarred and feathered by their peers. Nonsense. They are quite preferable to littering 'if (xx != 0)' all over the place in a great number of situations. Any time it is quite common for an object to be non-existent and the behavior is always the same, a null object encapsulates the situation quite nicely. Client code doesn't need to care, nor should it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-01 07:37 +1300 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <9h886dFeluU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #12355 |
On 11/ 1/11 04:36 AM, nroberts wrote: > On Oct 31, 1:34 am, Ian Collins<ian-n...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> You'll see kludges an any language! Null objects are an abomination and >> anyone using them should be tarred and feathered by their peers. > > Nonsense. They are quite preferable to littering 'if (xx != 0)' all > over the place in a great number of situations. Any time it is quite > common for an object to be non-existent and the behavior is always the > same, a null object encapsulates the situation quite nicely. Client > code doesn't need to care, nor should it. Very true, I was thinking "null references"! -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-31 06:55 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <j8lurh$3m0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #12323 |
On 10/31/2011 04:11 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Oct 30, 8:56�pm, Ian Collins <ian-n...@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> Once again, how? �Is >> >> void f( std::vector<int>& ); >> >> more complex than >> >> void f( int*, size_t ); >> >> ? >> >> With a container, the size information is embedded, no need to pass a >> count (which you would have to manually track). �From where I sit, the >> container removes at least two bits of complexity: you don't have to >> track a size and you don't have to worry about a null pointer. >> > You have to use std::vectors everywhere with the C++ version, if you > want to call f. You have to use arrays of ints everywhere with the C > version if you want to do the same. That's why most C++ algorithms take iterator arguments rather than container arguments. An algorithm, once it's correctly expressed in terms of iterators, can work equally well on the elements of an array of double as on a std::vector<int> or a std::list<unsigned long>. You only have to write the template once, no matter how the data's actually stored (as long as the algorithm's iterator requirements are met). -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-31 06:08 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <483e8349-dcd1-4e62-ae2c-6a0116b76dee@q16g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12336 |
On Oct 31, 12:55 pm, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote: > > That's why most C++ algorithms take iterator arguments rather than > container arguments. An algorithm, once it's correctly expressed in > terms of iterators, can work equally well on the elements of an array of > double as on a std::vector<int> or a std::list<unsigned long>. You only > have to write the template once, no matter how the data's actually > stored (as long as the algorithm's iterator requirements are met). > But not everyone uses the iterator system consistently. You need two requirements. You need the iterators to be set up correctly. But you also need functions like add and divide to be defined correctly. The mean of a list of integers is not usually an integer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-31 10:42 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <4EAEB3C4.3010802@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #12343 |
On 10/31/2011 09:08 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Oct 31, 12:55 pm, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote: >> >> That's why most C++ algorithms take iterator arguments rather than >> container arguments. An algorithm, once it's correctly expressed in >> terms of iterators, can work equally well on the elements of an array of >> double as on a std::vector<int> or a std::list<unsigned long>. You only >> have to write the template once, no matter how the data's actually >> stored (as long as the algorithm's iterator requirements are met). >> > But not everyone uses the iterator system consistently. "Not everyone uses X consistently" is a fairly accurate statement for just about any X. It's a problem with everything, and is not specific to C++ iterators. > You need two requirements. You need the iterators to be set up > correctly. But you also need functions like add and divide to be > defined correctly. The mean of a list of integers is not usually an > integer. That's true; which is why a C++ algorithm that performed a generic mean calculation would have to templated by the type to be used for calculating the mean. It would have to be the user's responsibility to choose that type in a way that allows the expressions "sum += *iterator" and "sum /= count" to do what he wants done.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-31 07:56 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <9e4e07c9-8941-4840-82ba-495ee4c9aba7@f27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12348 |
On Oct 31, 4:42 pm, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote: > On 10/31/2011 09:08 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > "Not everyone uses X consistently" is a fairly accurate statement for > just about any X. It's a problem with everything, and is not specific > to C++ iterators. > No, but it's particularly bad in this case, because the whole point of the template system is to avoid having to rewrite code or "adapter" routines (e.g. to convert an array of size_ts to an array of DWORDs).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-31 12:54 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <4EAED2D2.407@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #12364 |
On 10/31/2011 10:56 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Oct 31, 4:42 pm, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote: >> On 10/31/2011 09:08 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> >> "Not everyone uses X consistently" is a fairly accurate statement for >> just about any X. It's a problem with everything, and is not specific >> to C++ iterators. >> > No, but it's particularly bad in this case, because the whole point of > the template system is to avoid having to rewrite code or "adapter" > routines (e.g. to convert an array of size_ts to an array of DWORDs). Yes, and if used properly, it achieves that goal. Like anything else, it can be used improperly, a fact that's only worth bringing up in connection with an argument that explains why you think that improper use is more likely than it would be in corresponding C code. Given how much more complicated the C code would have to be to implement anything similar to the genericity of the C++ code, and the corresponding lack of type safety in any reasonable C approximation to genericity, I find that rather unlikely. However, I'm willing to listen to an argument to the contrary. I haven't seen that argument, just assertions that it's true.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-01 07:47 +1300 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <9h88piFeluU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #12343 |
On 11/ 1/11 02:08 AM, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Oct 31, 12:55 pm, James Kuyper<jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote: >> >> That's why most C++ algorithms take iterator arguments rather than >> container arguments. An algorithm, once it's correctly expressed in >> terms of iterators, can work equally well on the elements of an array of >> double as on a std::vector<int> or a std::list<unsigned long>. You only >> have to write the template once, no matter how the data's actually >> stored (as long as the algorithm's iterator requirements are met). >> > But not everyone uses the iterator system consistently. But the C++ standard library does and that's what matters. > You need two requirements. You need the iterators to be set up > correctly. But you also need functions like add and divide to be > defined correctly. The mean of a list of integers is not usually an > integer. The use of iterators for the C++ standard library algorithms is a sound and pragmatic design choice. It is sound because anything that behaves like an iterator can be used, so for example we can use std::sort on an array as well as a C++ container. It was pragmatic because early compilers did not support template parameters that are templates, so a container couldn't have been used as a template parameter -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-30 19:46 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <0.4e3119b8f592df60265f.20111030194632GMT.87bosyfejr.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #12303 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > On Oct 30, 8:05 pm, Ben Bacarisse <ben.use...@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com> writes: >> >> How does C solve this problem of having a great may data types and badly >> written (i.e. overly specific) function interfaces? >> > It doesn't really solve the problem. One of the most dangerous > features of C is the ability to typedef a basic type to something > like, say DWORD. Then you find yourself rewriting perfectly good code, > just because someone decided to put DWORDs where they really meant > "int", and the code no longer runs under the particular operating > system where DWORDs are used. > > But it alleviates it, because it's easy to write a function that > operates on lists (a list is an ordered collection, usually of like > items) as taking an array and a count. It's hard to do anything > fancier, like wrapping the list into a structure with a "length" > member, creating a linked list, or semi-hardcoding the length of the > array with a preprocessor define. So the plugs might not fit the > sockets, but at least all the sockets are set up in a similar way. > > Once you start allowing containers, that simplicity goes. Best just to say I disagree, in that his does not match my experience with C++. In my limited experience, as the types proliferate, C++ starts to win out big time. Some code might clarify things. You might want to sketch a situation with lots of "plugs and sockets" which gets more complex hen written in C++. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-31 01:49 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) |
| Message-ID | <efbe29b9-cacc-49d8-b93c-22312c78d060@j20g2000vby.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #12308 |
On Oct 30, 9:46 pm, Ben Bacarisse <ben.use...@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com> writes:
>
> Some code might clarify things. You might want to sketch a situation
> with lots of "plugs and sockets" which gets more complex hen written in
> C++.
>
I'm not sure I've even got the syntax right, it's so long since I did
this, but the root of the problem goes something like this
template <class Iterator, class numeric>
<numeric> standard_deviation( Iterator begin, Iterator end)
{
while(begin !- end)
{
/* code here */
++begin;
}
/* There's something wrong with out standard deviation, so I want
to call a tried and tested function to get the mean, which is foo ()
*/
foo();
/* The problem is that, even though under the bonnet I've just been
passed a double *, the only way of calling foo() is to construct a
temporary vector */
}
temple <class numeric>
<numeric> foo( std:vector<numeric> &list )
{
}
In C, you can have the problem that we might have floats or doubles or
long doubles. The whole point of the template idea is that you only
have to write the routines once. But you need iron tight discipline to
achieve this.
--
C programming resources
http://www.malcolmmclean.site11.com/www
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 7 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web