Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #25009 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2012-08-26 03:57 -0600 |
| Last post | 2012-09-07 06:18 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 226 — 44 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 03:57 -0600
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Johannes Bauer <dfnsonfsduifb@gmx.de> - 2012-08-26 12:28 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-26 13:56 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 21:34 -0600
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-27 01:44 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-26 12:32 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 05:11 -0600
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-26 14:16 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Varun Tewari <tewari.varun@gmail.com> - 2012-08-26 09:38 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Andrew Smallshaw <andrews@sdf.lonestar.org> - 2012-08-27 06:29 +0000
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2012-08-26 10:03 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-27 14:00 -0400
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2012-08-26 19:54 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-26 23:00 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-26 14:19 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-26 23:38 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-26 23:50 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-27 09:43 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-27 18:24 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-28 10:21 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 10:57 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-28 09:42 -0400
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-28 15:59 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 21:26 -0600
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-26 23:41 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-27 10:40 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-27 18:34 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-28 12:40 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 14:06 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-28 15:32 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 16:04 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-28 17:57 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 18:45 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2012-08-28 18:08 +0000
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 20:44 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-28 14:50 -0400
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 22:36 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-28 16:56 -0400
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 23:28 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-28 18:18 -0400
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-08-28 15:56 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-28 19:09 -0400
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-28 19:01 -0400
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-29 09:25 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-28 12:39 -0400
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-29 09:41 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 10:19 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-29 10:44 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 12:24 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-07 06:13 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 08:07 -0400
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-29 14:49 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Adrian Ratnapala <raka@scooter.fritz.box> - 2012-08-30 04:44 +0000
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Casey Carter <Casey_at_Carter_dot_net@dontspam.me.invalid> - 2012-08-30 00:20 -0500
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-30 09:01 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-29 16:19 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-07 06:17 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-07 14:22 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-09-10 17:21 -0400
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-07 06:03 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-07 05:41 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Bo Persson <bop@gmb.dk> - 2012-08-28 20:38 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 00:07 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Bo Persson <bop@gmb.dk> - 2012-08-29 21:51 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-28 15:24 -0400
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 22:47 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-28 16:59 -0400
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-28 17:07 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-08-27 16:50 -0400
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 00:27 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-27 16:15 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 09:20 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Adrian Ratnapala <adrian.ratnapala@gmail.com> - 2012-08-26 15:05 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-27 14:01 -0400
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-27 14:29 -0500
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-26 21:08 -0500
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Casey Carter <Casey@Carter.net> - 2012-08-27 21:47 -0500
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-27 22:34 -0500
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 09:27 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Casey Carter <casey_at_carter_dot_net@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-28 12:24 -0500
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 21:02 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Bo Persson <bop@gmb.dk> - 2012-08-28 21:15 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 23:00 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2012-08-28 23:12 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-28 17:30 -0400
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2012-08-28 23:38 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Casey Carter <casey_at_carter_dot_net@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-29 10:09 -0500
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 18:01 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 12:03 -0400
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2012-09-02 22:58 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Casey Carter <casey_at_carter_dot_net@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-28 16:25 -0500
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 23:58 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2012-08-28 23:03 +0100
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 08:02 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Casey Carter <casey_at_carter_dot_net@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-29 10:12 -0500
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 20:36 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-29 12:08 -0500
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 13:49 -0400
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2012-08-29 19:16 +0100
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 14:34 -0400
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2012-08-29 19:41 +0100
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 15:01 -0400
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Casey Carter <casey_at_carter_dot_net@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-29 14:05 -0500
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-29 15:18 -0400
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-29 17:53 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-30 09:47 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-30 10:17 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-31 05:59 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2012-08-31 14:29 +0000
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-01 06:45 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-30 08:05 -0400
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-30 14:54 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-30 18:13 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2012-08-30 18:39 +0100
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Garrett Hartshaw <ghartshaw@gmail.com> - 2012-08-30 13:49 -0400
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-30 14:07 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-31 11:13 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-31 13:41 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-09-03 10:28 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-31 10:55 -0500
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-31 00:18 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-30 17:30 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2012-08-31 14:18 -0400
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2012-08-31 19:34 +0100
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-31 17:24 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2012-09-02 01:10 +0100
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-07 05:57 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-07 14:17 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-07 19:37 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Garrett Hartshaw <ghartshaw@gmail.com> - 2012-08-30 22:07 -0400
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-31 14:53 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-09-05 19:41 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-09-05 23:44 -0400
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-09-05 23:08 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-09-06 07:07 -0400
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-09-06 09:40 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Dombo <dombo@disposable.invalid> - 2012-09-02 23:16 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2012-09-05 20:27 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-30 13:57 -0400
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-08-30 12:25 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) David Brown <david@westcontrol.removethisbit.com> - 2012-08-31 11:27 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-31 11:58 -0500
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-09-01 19:09 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 20:49 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2012-08-29 20:09 +0100
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 22:33 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2012-08-29 21:43 +0100
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-29 23:23 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Casey Carter <casey_at_carter_dot_net@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-29 17:21 -0500
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-30 09:06 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2012-08-30 13:53 +0000
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-30 18:51 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2012-08-31 21:15 -0500
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2012-08-29 23:21 +0100
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Luca Risolia <luca.risolia@studio.unibo.it> - 2012-08-30 02:38 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-30 09:11 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-30 08:46 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Casey Carter <Casey_at_Carter_dot_net@dontspam.me.invalid> - 2012-08-30 08:39 -0500
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Jens Gustedt <jens.gustedt@loria.fr> - 2012-08-28 21:06 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Casey Carter <casey_at_carter_dot_net@nospam.invalid> - 2012-08-28 12:18 -0500
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-28 13:00 -0500
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2012-08-28 22:47 +0000
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2012-08-28 19:32 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Bo Persson <bop@gmb.dk> - 2012-08-28 20:58 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) BGB <cr88192@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-28 16:55 -0500
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2012-08-26 19:49 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) "Ansel" <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> - 2012-08-26 21:41 -0600
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-08-26 21:01 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-08-27 01:56 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Ceriousmall <divadsmall@gmail.com> - 2012-08-27 04:37 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-08-27 08:50 -0400
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2012-09-01 10:35 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-01 12:47 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 22:08 -0600
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2012-09-11 11:14 -0400
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-11 15:14 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-12 01:01 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-12 04:40 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-12 06:31 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-09-12 10:16 -0400
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-12 07:27 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-12 07:58 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-13 04:24 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-09-12 16:21 +0100
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-12 10:21 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-09-12 18:59 +0100
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-09-12 14:01 -0400
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-09-12 20:36 +0100
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-09-12 16:57 -0400
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-09-13 11:36 +0100
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-13 12:03 +0100
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-09-13 13:30 +0100
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-13 21:32 +0100
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-13 15:13 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2012-09-13 07:33 -0400
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-14 03:35 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2012-09-14 12:21 +0100
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) "Jan G" <gbn2012@world.net> - 2012-09-30 03:35 -0600
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) "Jan G" <gbn2012@world.net> - 2012-09-30 03:31 -0600
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) "Jan G" <gbn2012@world.net> - 2012-09-30 03:33 -0600
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-13 14:16 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-12 14:18 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-13 05:15 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-14 03:37 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2012-09-14 13:58 +0100
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2012-09-14 08:18 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2012-09-14 08:33 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) "Jan G" <gbn2012@world.net> - 2012-09-30 03:37 -0600
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) "Jan G" <gbn2012@world.net> - 2012-09-30 03:36 -0600
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) "Jan G" <gbn2012@world.net> - 2012-09-30 03:38 -0600
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-12-17 14:49 -0800
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2012-12-18 12:11 +1300
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2012-09-13 12:04 +0200
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2012-09-12 11:42 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2012-09-13 13:00 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 22:07 -0600
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2012-09-05 14:57 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2012-09-05 15:29 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-01 22:45 +0000
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> - 2012-09-02 01:07 +0100
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 22:35 -0600
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2012-09-02 21:35 +0000
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> - 2012-09-01 22:30 -0600
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) mike3 <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> - 2012-09-12 15:40 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2012-09-13 05:18 -0700
Re: C as a Subset of C++ (or C++ as a superset of C) Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-09-07 06:18 -0700
Page 11 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 Next page →
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-13 14:16 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnfw6ly67a.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #26293 |
"BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> That was an example of a different approach (in my own language) to dealing
> with families of integer types. But this morning I had better luck in
> finding the datatypes used by Go (a modern language with C-style syntax) and
> that uses:
>
> uint8, uint16, uint32, uint64
> int8, int16, int32, int64
>
> While C# uses:
>
> byte, ushort, uint, ulong of sizes 8, 16, 32, 64
> sbyte, short, int, long of sizes 8, 16, 32, 64
>
> All pretty much corresponding to the 8 integer types that I said were
> typical.
>
> So where is size_t and ptr_diff_t amongst that lot? See, it's possible to
> manage without it! So C's approach *does* seem untidy.
[...]
Sure, it's untidy, but IMHO necessary, at least for C.
Having a range of integer types with specified sizes can be
convenient, but they don't eliminate the need for types defined
in terms of how they're used rather than how they're represented.
C's size_t, in particular, has a size defined by the compiler,
not by its size.
There are several possible approaches that can be used in defining
built-in integer types for a language.
You can start with a set of types with exactly specified sizes,
as Go and C# do; you might then define other types in terms of those.
Or you can define a set of types with implementation-defined sizes,
as C has always done; C99 then added the [u]intN_t types that are
defined in an implementation-defined manner in terms of those.
The former approach probably would not have been practical, say,
40 or 50 years ago, because there were existing systems whose
hardware-supported types were multiples of 6, 8, or 9 bits.
That's the environment in which C was developed.
The industry seems to have settled on 8, 16, 32, and 64 bits as the
usual sizes for hardware-supported integers, and 2's-complement
as the representation for signed integers. The designers of Go
and C# have chosen to build that assumption into their languages.
That probably made good sense, but I wonder how that decision will
look 40 or 50 years from now.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-12 14:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ccdbe8f1-ffa1-4d0d-a3fe-57bf18d75e80@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #26250 |
בתאריך יום רביעי, 12 בספטמבר 2012 20:57:10 UTC+1, מאת Bart: > "James Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote in message > > I thought Malcolm was suggesting the use of a single int type instead of the > four common widths supported by many CPUs (plus signed/unsigned variations). > > Perhaps dealing with all my eight types isn't a big deal after all.. > Most data is integers, strings, reals or enums. Beyond that level of granularity it becomes very domain-specific. There's a tension between the needs of the machine and the needs of the data. In a universal computer languge, the line would have to be drawn to empahsise the needs of the data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-13 05:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <fa81fcb2-a48f-4afd-ac62-95efac381fe6@l9g2000vbj.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #26260 |
On Sep 12, 10:18 pm, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com> wrote: > בתאריך יום רביעי, 12 בספטמבר 2012 20:57:10 UTC+1, מאת Bart:> "James Kuyper" <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote in message > > > I thought Malcolm was suggesting the use of a single int type instead of the > > four common widths supported by many CPUs (plus signed/unsigned variations). > > > Perhaps dealing with all my eight types isn't a big deal after all.. > > Most data is integers, strings, reals or enums. chars, bools > Beyond that level of granularity > it becomes very domain-specific. There's a tension between the needs of the > machine and the needs of the data. In a universal computer languge, the line > would have to be drawn to empahsise the needs of the data.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-14 03:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <baabefd7-e5e4-474e-8ff7-83fbf4f0cd9c@gq8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #26299 |
On Sep 13, 1:15 pm, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Sep 12, 10:18 pm, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com> > wrote: > > > בתאריך יום רביעי, 12 בספטמבר 2012 20:57:10 UTC+1, מאת Bart:> "James Kuyper" <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote in message > > > > I thought Malcolm was suggesting the use of a single int type instead of the > > > four common widths supported by many CPUs (plus signed/unsigned variations). > > > > Perhaps dealing with all my eight types isn't a big deal after all.. > > > Most data is integers, strings, reals or enums. > > chars, bools functions, monads, continuations.. > > Beyond that level of granularity > > it becomes very domain-specific. There's a tension between the needs of the > > machine and the needs of the data. In a universal computer languge, the line > > would have to be drawn to empahsise the needs of the data.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-14 13:58 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <k2v9pi$lfl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #26339 |
"Nick Keighley" <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:baabefd7-e5e4-474e-8ff7-83fbf4f0cd9c@gq8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... > On Sep 13, 1:15 pm, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> > wrote: >> On Sep 12, 10:18 pm, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com> >> wrote: >> >> > בתאריך יום רביעי, 12 בספטמבר 2012 20:57:10 UTC+1, מאת Bart:> "James >> > Kuyper" <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote in message >> >> > > I thought Malcolm was suggesting the use of a single int type instead >> > > of the >> > > four common widths supported by many CPUs (plus signed/unsigned >> > > variations). >> >> > > Perhaps dealing with all my eight types isn't a big deal after all.. >> >> > Most data is integers, strings, reals or enums. >> >> chars, bools > > functions, monads, continuations.. He said *most* data. How many everyday programmers are dealing with monads (whatever they are) and continuations (whatever *those* are)? Most data *is* numbers and strings; and even strings are really just sequences of numbers. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-14 08:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1734e164-688a-4f5a-b588-4ae9a14dcedd@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #26343 |
בתאריך יום שישי, 14 בספטמבר 2012 14:00:34 UTC+1, מאת Bart: > "Nick Keighley" <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > > Most data *is* numbers and strings; and even strings are really just > sequences of numbers. > Data is also ones and zeros. And it's dates, names, x,y,z co-ordinates, employee records. One question is, what's the level of granularity, and thus generality, at which it becomes sensible to have support at the level of the language? But the question I'm asking is slightly different. If two programming language entities represent essentially the same data, can we not eliminate one? Do we need double and float? Do we need strings and characters, or can a character be a one-letter string? Do we need twelve or so integer types? Of course types aren't added for the sake of it, and there are machine efficiency reasons for different types. But it seems to me that the integer types, in particular need rationalisation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-14 08:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f4e34709-08ea-46bc-a792-9023646f80d4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #26343 |
On Friday, September 14, 2012 8:00:34 AM UTC-5, Bart wrote: > "Nick Keighley" <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message > > news:baabefd7-e5e4-474e-8ff7-83fbf4f0cd9c@gq8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com... > > > On Sep 13, 1:15 pm, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> > > wrote: > >> On Sep 12, 10:18 pm, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > בתאריך יום רביעי, 12 בספטמבר 2012 20:57:10 UTC+1, מאת Bart:> "James > >> > Kuyper" <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote in message > >> > >> > > I thought Malcolm was suggesting the use of a single int type instead > >> > > of the > >> > > four common widths supported by many CPUs (plus signed/unsigned > >> > > variations). > >> > >> > > Perhaps dealing with all my eight types isn't a big deal after all.. > >> > >> > Most data is integers, strings, reals or enums. > >> > >> chars, bools > > > > functions, monads, continuations.. > > He said *most* data. How many everyday programmers are dealing with monads > (whatever they are) and continuations (whatever *those* are)? Anyone doing functional programming in Haskell or a similar language. Which, while not a huge number, is significant. If we want to get truly pedantic, all data (at least in the context of digital computers) is some arrangement of bits in memory. When you get right down to it, all we work with are bits, bytes, and words (which means BLISS is the ultimate programming language). Doesn't mean higher-level, abstract types (like functions and monads) aren't useful (even necessary in some domains).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Jan G" <gbn2012@world.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-30 03:37 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <k493o1$2nf$4@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #26343 |
BartC wrote: you want to kill people
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Jan G" <gbn2012@world.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-30 03:36 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <k493o0$2nf$3@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #26339 |
Nick Keighley wrote: you killed people
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Jan G" <gbn2012@world.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-30 03:38 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <k493qm$35g$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #26339 |
Nick Keighley wrote: my bad on you, you have killed people
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-17 14:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <kfnr4mofg5r.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #26339 |
Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> writes: > On Sep 13, 1:15 pm, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> > wrote: >> On Sep 12, 10:18 pm, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com> >> wrote: >> >> > <<D7>> <<91>> <<D7>> <<AA>> <<D7>> <<90>> <<D7>> <<A8>> <<D7>> <<99>> <<D7>> <<9A>> <<D7>> <<99>> <<D7>> <<95>> <<D7>> <<9D>> <<D7>> <<A8>> <<D7>> <<91>> <<D7>> <<99>> <<D7>> <<A2>> <<D7>> <<99>> , 12 <<D7>> <<91>> <<D7>> <<A1>> <<D7>> <<A4>> <<D7>> <<98>> <<D7>> <<9E>> <<D7>> <<91>> <<D7>> <<A8>> 2012 20:57:10 UTC+1, <<D7>> <<9E>> <<D7>> <<90>> <<D7>> <<AA>> Bart:> "James Kuyper" <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote in message >> >> > > I thought Malcolm was suggesting the use of a single int type instead of the >> > > four common widths supported by many CPUs (plus signed/unsigned variations). >> >> > > Perhaps dealing with all my eight types isn't a big deal after all.. >> >> > Most data is integers, strings, reals or enums. >> >> chars, bools > > functions, monads, continuations.. Monads aren't really a datatype, even a generic datatype like 'list' or 'array', but more like a datatype pattern, something like a function that operates on type constructors (of which 'list' and 'array' are both examples). That puts them in a different category (no pun intended) than other datatypes, even generic ones like lists and arrays.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-12-18 12:11 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <aj9n4nFdf3aU6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #29439 |
Tim Rentsch wrote: > Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> writes: > >> On Sep 13, 1:15 pm, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> >> wrote: >>> On Sep 12, 10:18 pm, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> <<D7>> <<91>> <<D7>> <<AA>> <<D7>> <<90>> <<D7>> <<A8>> <<D7>> <<99>> <<D7>> <<9A>> <<D7>> <<99>> <<D7>> <<95>> <<D7>> <<9D>> <<D7>> <<A8>> <<D7>> <<91>> <<D7>> <<99>> <<D7>> <<A2>> <<D7>> <<99>> , 12 <<D7>> <<91>> <<D7>> <<A1>> <<D7>> <<A4>> <<D7>> <<98>> <<D7>> <<9E>> <<D7>> <<91>> <<D7>> <<A8>> 2012 20:57:10 UTC+1, <<D7>> <<9E>> <<D7>> <<90>> <<D7>> <<AA>> Bart:> "James Kuyper" <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote in message :) -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-13 12:04 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <5051ae2f$0$17945$4fafbaef@reader1.news.tin.it> |
| In reply to | #26248 |
"James Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> ha scritto nel messaggio news:5050CE07.3000307@verizon.net... > On 09/12/2012 11:21 AM, BartC wrote: >> "Malcolm McLean" <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote in message >> news:7073a8f9-488c-4f6a-9a32-42e8f2b161cc@googlegroups.com... > ... >>> Also the proliferation of integer types is unacceptable. >> >> Proliferation? Typically there are 8 combinations of signed/unsigned, and >> width (8,16,32,64 bits). > > I count a lot more than 8. There's a minimum of 12 integer types that > must be distinct on all implementations (even though one pair of them > must have the same size, alignment requirement and representation, and > other pairs might also match): > _Bool > [unsigned | (plain) | signed] char: 3 > [unsigned | signed] [short | int | long | long long]: 8 > > Each of the following types could be the same as one of the above, or a > distinct extended integer type: > [u]intN_t: none mandatory > [u]int_leastN_t: 8 mandatory > [u]int_fastN_t: 8 mandatory > [u]intmax_t: 2 > [u]intprt_t: 2 > size_t, ptrdiff_t, wchar_t, char16_t, char32_t > atomic_ versions of all of the above: total of 37 mandatory. > sig_atomic_t, wint_t > > That's a total of 74 mandatory types that are required to be integers, > and in principle they could all be distinct types. can be 10000 the type uintxx_t but for me is not a problem because i know it is one unsigned of xx bit...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-12 11:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnk3vzxev4.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #26237 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> בתאריך יום רביעי, 12 בספטמבר 2012 09:01:53 UTC+1, מאת Nick Keighley:
>> On Sep 11, 11:14 pm, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com>
>>
>> oh. I assumed you were proposing Lisp *as* the universal hammer. Which
>> blub are you proposing then? PL/I was the last attempt.
>>
> I'd say it needs essentially C syntax - loops, curly brackets,
> non-flow control non-arithemtical functionality implemented as
> functions rather than the core language. That's generally been
> accepted.
No, it hasn't. There are a number of different syntaxes for
delimiting compound statements in modern languages: {/} (C, C++,
Perl et al), begin/end (Ada et al), and indentation (Python et al)
spring to mind, and there are variations on each. I don't find
any of these clearly superior to the others.
[...]
> Also the proliferation of integer types is unacceptable.
It's nearly unavoidable if you're going to (a) support types
matching the various widths of integers supported by hardware, and
(b) permit the use of types whose width can vary from platform to
another (size_t, for example).
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-13 13:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <91e9e9a8-dac0-499f-84bc-277e2c2137db@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #26237 |
On Wednesday, September 12, 2012 6:40:25 AM UTC-5, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> בתאריך יום רביעי, 12 בספטמבר 2012 09:01:53 UTC+1, מאת Nick Keighley:
>
> > On Sep 11, 11:14 pm, Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mcle...@btinternet.com>
> >
> > oh. I assumed you were proposing Lisp *as* the universal hammer. Which
> > blub are you proposing then? PL/I was the last attempt.
> >
>
> I'd say it needs essentially C syntax - loops, curly brackets, non-flow
> control non-arithemtical functionality implemented as functions rather
> than the core language. That's generally been accepted.
>
Haskell seems to do pretty well without loops or curly brackets.
Quicksort in Haskell:
quicksort :: Ord a => [a] -> [a]
quicksort [] = []
quicksort (p:xs) = (quicksort lesser) ++ [p] ++ (quicksort greater)
where
lesser = filter (< p) xs
greater = filter (>= p) xs
Of course, there *is* no universal hammer, because the universe is too
goddamned big. What works really well for OS kernels and device drivers
would be painful to use for Web apps, which would in turn be painful to use
for serious number crunching.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Anse" <blankone23@framebuilder.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-01 22:07 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <k1ulvj$la7$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #25704 |
John Bode wrote: > On Sunday, August 26, 2012 4:57:30 AM UTC-5, Ansel wrote: >> Isn't it a lame use of human time and effort to maintain completely >> separate C and C++ standards? > > Isn't is a lame use of human time and effort to have, what, > eleventy million different programming languages in the first place? Well, yes, of course. But C/C++ers are like addicts and need much more transition time and some will just never make it without their vice. So then, a common ground for C/C++ is like step 1 of the 12-step-method for them. > Why stop with C and C++? Shhhh. That is not the plan. > Why not roll in Java and C# and Objective-C? Many are trying that, but just like hope that a president or government can rescue humanity is, of course, ludacrous. (BTW, after the republicans' convention, it sure does look like Obama is a shoe-in for another 4 years, huh.) > C and C++ are different languages with a large common subset. > Why is that a problem? It's not common ENOUGH. Mostly, the C++ programmers will have to help the C programmers adapt to a future that some of them will still see, lest they become the next wave of homeless when the <you know whos> kick them to the curb. Making C/C++ more like one thing is like throwing a lifesaver to the drowning C programmers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-05 14:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0b02962f-e46c-4417-a7e8-d833f461d13e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #25719 |
On Saturday, September 1, 2012 11:06:14 PM UTC-5, Anse wrote: > John Bode wrote: > [snip] > > C and C++ are different languages with a large common subset. > > Why is that a problem? > > It's not common ENOUGH. Mostly, the C++ programmers will have to help the C > programmers adapt to a future that some of them will still see, lest they > become the next wave of homeless when the <you know whos> kick them to the > curb. Making C/C++ more like one thing is like throwing a lifesaver to the > drowning C programmers. Any programmer who is unable or unwilling to learn and adapt to the incompatibilities between C and C++ (which will only diverge further over time) needs to get the hell out of software and find a new line of work, full stop. If I can manage it, it ain't that goddamned hard to do. Yes, it would be nice if every legal C program was also a legal C++ program with identical semantics. That ain't happening. Ever. Quit whining and deal with it or find another line of work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-05 15:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d624acdb-7e0a-4fb8-84f7-e8db1f307473@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #25970 |
FYGG. Let's try that again. On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 4:57:55 PM UTC-5, John Bode wrote: > > > Any programmer who is unable or unwilling to learn and adapt to the > incompatibilities between C and C++ (which will only diverge further > over time) needs to get the hell out of software and find a new line > of work, full stop. If I can manage it, it ain't that goddamned hard > to do. > > Yes, it would be nice if every legal C program was also a legal C++ > program with identical semantics. That ain't happening. Ever. > Quit whining and deal with it or find another line of work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-01 22:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <20120901153323.691@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #25009 |
On 2012-08-26, Ansel <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> wrote: > Isn't it a lame use of human time and effort to maintain completely separate > C and C++ standards? Maintaining these standards is just the hobby of some people who have been put out to pasture. Who cares if they are wasting /their/ time; the problem is that, while they may improve a little thing here and there, they are wrecking the languages (because some fools in the world actually take them seriously). I do not use any syntax or function* newer than the 1995 C technical corrigendum (which added some badly needed wchar_t related functionality to the nearly perfect C90 language). In C++ programming, I stick to 1998 C++, which mostly got it right. Just say no to these clowns. Language standardization should be about one thing and one thing only: surveying the existing practice (what is implemented), identifying what is common and codifying it (perhaps with some small adjustments to bring nearly equivalent features together). The situation where you have a new standard, most of which is not implemented anywhere, is completely ridiculous and wrong. -- * By function I mean standard C function, not platform-specific API function, of course!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Leigh Johnston <leigh@i42.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2012-09-02 01:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <M56dnZDZYdTWPt_NnZ2dnUVZ8lKdnZ2d@giganews.com> |
| In reply to | #25709 |
On 01/09/2012 23:45, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2012-08-26, Ansel <tinker454@trytospammenowloser.com> wrote: >> Isn't it a lame use of human time and effort to maintain completely separate >> C and C++ standards? > > Maintaining these standards is just the hobby of some people who have > been put out to pasture. > > Who cares if they are wasting /their/ time; the problem is that, while they > may improve a little thing here and there, they are wrecking the languages > (because some fools in the world actually take them seriously). > > I do not use any syntax or function* newer than the 1995 C technical corrigendum > (which added some badly needed wchar_t related functionality to the nearly > perfect C90 language). > > In C++ programming, I stick to 1998 C++, which mostly got it right. > > Just say no to these clowns. > > Language standardization should be about one thing and one thing only: > surveying the existing practice (what is implemented), identifying what is > common and codifying it (perhaps with some small adjustments to bring > nearly equivalent features together). > > The situation where you have a new standard, most of which is not implemented > anywhere, is completely ridiculous and wrong. You are an idiot. /Leigh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web