Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #55447 > unrolled thread
| Started by | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-12-26 04:39 -0800 |
| Last post | 2015-01-05 15:21 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 258 — 38 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-26 04:39 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-26 05:33 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-26 06:18 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Xcott Craver <xcottcraver@gmail.com> - 2014-12-26 10:07 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Xavier Roche <xroche@free.fr.NOSPAM.invalid> - 2014-12-26 15:18 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2014-12-26 09:54 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuckelberger@nowhere.net> - 2014-12-26 17:42 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-26 10:00 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2014-12-30 09:12 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-30 09:41 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2014-12-30 10:25 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-30 12:07 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2014-12-30 13:45 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2014-12-30 16:55 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2014-12-30 15:28 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2014-12-31 15:21 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-31 16:06 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2014-12-31 17:12 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-31 18:46 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Xcott Craver <xcottcraver@gmail.com> - 2015-01-01 06:23 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-01 14:41 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-01 23:32 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-01 16:10 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-01-02 01:42 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 03:55 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-01-02 16:22 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 09:00 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-02 17:13 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 09:39 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-01-02 18:24 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-02 21:56 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-02 22:16 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-02 14:38 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 11:33 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 14:20 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Xcott Craver <xcottcraver@gmail.com> - 2015-01-04 15:54 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Xcott Craver <xcottcraver@gmail.com> - 2015-01-04 16:45 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-06 06:05 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-03 07:12 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-03 10:29 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-12-30 21:58 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? christian.bau@cbau.wanadoo.co.uk - 2015-01-04 06:32 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 00:15 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-31 01:07 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-31 03:41 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-31 08:33 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-01 08:38 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-02 12:38 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-02 10:29 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-02 09:51 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-02 12:55 -0600
Programming and people (was Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'?) Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 05:56 +0000
Re: Programming and people (was Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'?) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-03 00:03 -0800
Re: Programming and people (was Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'?) Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 13:30 +0000
Re: Programming and people (was Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'?) "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2015-01-04 17:37 -0800
Re: Programming and people (was Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'?) "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2015-01-04 17:40 -0800
Re: Programming and people (was Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'?) Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 01:48 +0000
Re: Programming and people (was Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'?) "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2015-01-04 17:52 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-31 03:37 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-30 23:58 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-31 08:37 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-31 09:24 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-12-30 19:35 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2014-12-30 20:10 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 06:30 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-01-03 18:00 +0200
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-04 22:47 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2014-12-31 04:31 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2014-12-30 20:19 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-01 20:49 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-01 23:14 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-02 12:38 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-01-01 23:45 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-02 12:51 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-02 14:17 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-02 00:43 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-02 23:56 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-02 11:48 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-02 04:37 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-03 09:39 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-02 13:11 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 13:46 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-03 07:03 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 18:32 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-04 08:09 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-03 12:13 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-03 14:13 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-03 14:45 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-05 15:14 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-04 11:52 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-03 15:25 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 06:41 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-02 14:58 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 07:31 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-02 16:47 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-02 08:31 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-03 14:03 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-03 13:16 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-03 09:11 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 15:07 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-04 10:43 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-01-04 14:50 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-04 22:38 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-06 00:49 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-06 01:59 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-03 19:13 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-03 15:42 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-03 22:23 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-04 22:43 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-04 14:23 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-01-04 19:38 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 01:08 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 01:28 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-04 10:54 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-01-04 14:58 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-05 09:59 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Harmon <source@netcom.com> - 2015-01-04 20:50 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-05 10:00 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-05 15:29 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-05 10:01 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 16:11 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-05 16:29 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 16:54 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-05 17:28 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 18:34 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-05 10:56 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 19:05 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-05 11:52 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-08 21:53 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2015-01-05 11:07 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-05 20:50 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 20:10 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-06 01:10 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-05 08:59 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 10:17 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-05 18:57 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 11:14 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 11:27 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-05 19:40 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-05 19:58 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 15:09 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 12:29 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-05 21:04 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 13:38 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 13:44 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 13:54 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-05 12:04 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-05 20:54 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 12:02 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-05 19:56 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 19:04 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-05 21:02 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 20:15 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-05 12:00 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-06 01:17 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-08 21:56 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-01-14 22:03 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-14 17:54 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-15 09:53 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-15 09:06 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-15 14:41 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-15 14:15 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-15 06:30 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-15 16:15 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 08:35 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-15 12:01 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-15 23:08 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-18 16:25 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-19 09:01 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-15 09:08 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-15 09:08 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 11:49 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-15 14:55 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 12:05 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-15 12:22 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 12:27 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-15 15:58 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 13:23 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 13:32 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 13:43 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-15 15:49 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 20:34 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 23:50 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-16 01:12 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-16 01:30 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-16 01:43 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-01-16 10:42 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-01-16 17:37 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-16 10:09 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-16 02:27 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-15 17:25 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fmassei@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 14:44 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-01-16 10:47 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-16 10:36 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-01-15 04:55 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-01-15 15:12 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-05 13:44 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-04 22:22 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-01-04 22:29 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-05 12:58 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-05 15:14 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-05 16:16 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2015-01-05 16:23 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 15:38 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-05 21:07 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-02 08:13 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-05 15:03 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-06 08:48 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-02 10:18 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-02 20:16 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-01-02 21:44 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? A Lurker <none@example.com> - 2015-01-03 09:27 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-03 11:54 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 15:04 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-04 10:25 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-01-03 15:44 -0600
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-04 10:59 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-04 10:56 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2015-01-03 22:30 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-03 14:22 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-03 13:58 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-03 22:12 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-01-04 11:00 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? "D. Aaron Sawyer" <aaron@110.net> - 2015-01-04 15:07 -0400
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-04 11:38 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-04 11:41 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-05 13:01 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-05 04:46 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-03-24 12:27 -0700
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-01-04 22:48 +0100
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 01:46 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 02:17 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 04:18 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 07:32 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 07:42 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 07:57 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 09:39 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 09:43 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-04 01:45 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-11 08:35 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-03 11:36 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-01-03 18:05 +0200
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-03 21:18 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-01-03 17:01 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2015-01-03 09:11 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-03 14:39 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-03 15:07 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-01-03 13:47 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-01-03 21:53 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-03 14:09 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-01-04 08:16 +1300
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-01-04 15:11 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-01-03 07:08 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Dr Nick <nospam-4@temporary-address.org.uk> - 2015-01-03 15:14 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-01-03 12:22 -0800
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-01-12 15:55 -0500
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-12 22:18 +0000
Re: do c coders consider themselves as an 'elite'? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-01-05 15:21 +0000
Page 11 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 Next page →
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 15:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <54aaaa46.17616484@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #55719 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > On 02/01/15 17:31, Keith Thompson wrote: > > Defining it as the macro CHAR_BIT in <stddef.h> isn't what I'd > > call "cagey". And C does have a byte type; it just spells it > > "unsigned char". > > True - but C also uses a different definition of "byte" from most people > (including most C programmers). Myeah, but that's because most people have no sense of history - or future. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 16:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sNyqw.333354$lM6.172060@fx22.am4> |
| In reply to | #55906 |
On 05/01/2015 15:14, Richard Bos wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > >> On 02/01/15 17:31, Keith Thompson wrote: > >>> Defining it as the macro CHAR_BIT in <stddef.h> isn't what I'd >>> call "cagey". And C does have a byte type; it just spells it >>> "unsigned char". >> >> True - but C also uses a different definition of "byte" from most people >> (including most C programmers). > > Myeah, but that's because most people have no sense of history - or > future. If we have to worry about the future then perhaps the definition of a 'bit' needs to be widened too. If you had to put money on what someone, some article or a fragment of code means by a 'byte' in 2015, which would you guess - 6, 8, 9 or 17, or would you refuse to bet? -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 16:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <wUyqw.376135$be7.336268@fx14.am4> |
| In reply to | #55913 |
BartC wrote: <snip> > If we have to worry about the future then perhaps the definition of a > 'bit' needs to be widened too. The bit is a fundamental unit. The byte is not. > > If you had to put money on what someone, some article or a fragment of > code means by a 'byte' in 2015, which would you guess - 6, 8, 9 or 17, > or would you refuse to bet? Obviously I'd refuse to bet, because I only bet on certainties. But, if I were a betting man, the odds on 8 are good, here in 2015. Now, how do the odds change if we fast-forward to, say, 2065? -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 15:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <df27fd44-c685-4c09-8a98-6cdf6753e284@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55913 |
W dniu poniedziałek, 5 stycznia 2015 17:16:33 UTC+1 użytkownik Bart napisał: > > If we have to worry about the future then perhaps the definition of a > 'bit' needs to be widened too. bit could be 'widened' as an 'arithmetic' type with inner state (of n inner 'shapes') with no spacial structure - not neccessary 'arithmetic' but sorta quasi arithmetic for sure there should be some transition 'track' allowing to transform states.. probably such 'type' would be defined in a form of some operation table or set of tables
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 21:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m8eqsa$1fk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55906 |
On 05/01/15 16:14, Richard Bos wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: > >> On 02/01/15 17:31, Keith Thompson wrote: > >>> Defining it as the macro CHAR_BIT in <stddef.h> isn't what I'd >>> call "cagey". And C does have a byte type; it just spells it >>> "unsigned char". >> >> True - but C also uses a different definition of "byte" from most people >> (including most C programmers). > > Myeah, but that's because most people have no sense of history - or > future. > It is a fact "byte" was not always 8 bits, and in historical contexts that may be important - and probably most people who know of a "byte" are younger than the relevant history. But the future? If I could predict the future accurately, I would not have to write software for a living - but I really don't think the size of a byte will ever change again. It started as a vague and varying term, and has solidified into a fixed 8 bit size - and there are many programmers and programs that depend on that assumption. There is nothing to be gained, and much to be lost, by any architecture ever choosing something different.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-02 08:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmackpl.4et.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #55666 |
On Fri, 2015-01-02, Stefan Ram wrote: > Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: >>When coding for a synthetic benchmark or writing a performance critical >>library, I would expect the programmer to use the features what would >>give C++ the edge over C such as templates (instead of void* parameters) >>and move semantics. C++ code isn't necessarily OO code... ... > It is possible that C can't be faster than C++, but the last time > I looked at the shootout web site, it /was/ faster than C++. That only shows that benchmarks aren't easy to write or interpret ... /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 15:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <54aaa766.16880562@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #55664 |
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: > BartC wrote: > > On 30/12/2014 17:50, Stefan Ram wrote: > >> C is the fastest language on the »language shootout« site. > > > > /One/ of the fastest, with C++ and Fortran usually, but sometimes > > another such as Ada or Java takes the top spot, or is not far behind. > > Lets not forget that C can't be faster than C++, the latter has the same > (as well as extras) bag of tricks available. Let's not forget that C++ can't be faster than C, the former has to take the programmer's use of the extra bags of tricks into account. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-06 08:48 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <ch084eFpgmlU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55903 |
Richard Bos wrote: > Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> BartC wrote: >>> On 30/12/2014 17:50, Stefan Ram wrote: > >>>> C is the fastest language on the »language shootout« site. >>> >>> /One/ of the fastest, with C++ and Fortran usually, but sometimes >>> another such as Ada or Java takes the top spot, or is not far behind. >> >> Lets not forget that C can't be faster than C++, the latter has the same >> (as well as extras) bag of tricks available. > > Let's not forget that C++ can't be faster than C, the former has to take > the programmer's use of the extra bags of tricks into account. No, no does not. You don't pay for tricks you don't use. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-02 10:18 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <092bd1e1-6b39-4cc8-aedd-fb593a3392c5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55662 |
W dniu piątek, 2 stycznia 2015 00:14:36 UTC+1 użytkownik Bart napisał: > > Ridiculous isn't it? The notion that for a language to be successful, it > apparently needs to have curly braces! I can design a copy-cat language > tomorrow that does exactly what C does, but that doesn't use curly > braces, or a whole other bunch of annoying syntax. (Come to think of it, > I already have a version of C where most curly braces have been eliminated.) > in what form you eliminated those curly braces? (i recently found some alternative for consideration too) i wouldnt call curly braces annoying (i would call it half annoying as half ot this syntax is quite nice (code looks light), other side is annoyiing ;c
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-02 20:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <S0Dpw.981515$u67.977758@fx08.am4> |
| In reply to | #55691 |
On 02/01/2015 18:18, fir wrote:
> W dniu piątek, 2 stycznia 2015 00:14:36 UTC+1 użytkownik Bart napisał:
>>
>> Ridiculous isn't it? The notion that for a language to be successful, it
>> apparently needs to have curly braces! I can design a copy-cat language
>> tomorrow that does exactly what C does, but that doesn't use curly
>> braces, or a whole other bunch of annoying syntax. (Come to think of it,
>> I already have a version of C where most curly braces have been eliminated.)
>>
> i wouldnt call curly braces annoying (i would call it half annoying as half ot this syntax is quite nice (code looks light), other side is annoyiing ;c
Problems with curly braces:
(1) They are optional. That means having to keep adding and removing
them as the number of statements in a block varies between 1 and
anything other than 1.
(2) Being optional, this can be a cause of errors when a brace is
wrongly placed or missing; the missing brace does not ring alarm bells.
(3) There are too many options (or styles) for placing them, none
satisfactory. Some take are too much vertical space or generally just
get in the way
(4) Because the same } brace closes any kind of block (if, for, while,
function etc) this can make it harder to fix problems of unbalanced braces.
(5) { and } are not visually substantial enough to stand out.
>
> in what form you eliminated those curly braces? (i recently found
>some alternative for consideration too)
I use a special preprocessor to convert C-without-braces to normal C.
Without braces it looks like this:
http://pastebin.com/MDbSWRaf
After preprocessing, it looks like:
http://pastebin.com/3czMBgiW
The changes in the syntax are minor; partly they are there so the syntax
more nearly matches my other languages and reduces my most common errors
when switching between them:
(i) {,} eliminated for blocks (they are still used for data blocks and
for do-while), and replaced with constructs such as if-then-else-endif
(ii) I use :=, = and <> instead of =, == and !=
(iv) I use an obligatory 'function' or 'proc' keyword to introduce every
function
(v) Function prototypes are automatically generated: in file.cl for
local static functions, and file.cx for exported ones
(vi) Functions with a 'global' prefix are exported; without 'global',
they are assumed to be static.
(vii) 'switch' uses 'when' instead of 'case', and it allows lists of
values instead of just one at a time. 'break' is automatic.
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-02 21:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <%HIpw.1594148$w82.131994@fx21.iad> |
| In reply to | #55695 |
On 1/2/15 3:16 PM, BartC wrote:
>
> Problems with curly braces:
>
> (1) They are optional. That means having to keep adding and removing
> them as the number of statements in a block varies between 1 and
> anything other than 1.
And since they are allowed (even though optional) you can just always
leave them in for blocks of one statement (some coding standards require
this).
>
> (2) Being optional, this can be a cause of errors when a brace is
> wrongly placed or missing; the missing brace does not ring alarm bells.>
This is why some standards say to always use the brace.
> (3) There are too many options (or styles) for placing them, none
> satisfactory. Some take are too much vertical space or generally just
> get in the way
so you just adopt the one you like and maybe use a smart editor to
reflow a program if it is too badly formatted for you. You must have a
preferred style, as you "brace-less C" will use something that is usable
in real C
>
> (4) Because the same } brace closes any kind of block (if, for, while,
> function etc) this can make it harder to fix problems of unbalanced braces.
A smart editor that matches braces is very useful here (and much simpler
than on to match the multitude of combinations that your brace-less C has.
I will sometimes use something like
} // end while
to make things a bit clearer for deeply nested or large blocks.
>
> (5) { and } are not visually substantial enough to stand out.
>
I have never had problems seeing them in properly formatted code. The
BIG advantage they have is that being a well established standard, many
tools know how to handle them and will do things to make it easier to
work with the code, be it allowing inner blocks to be collapsed,
matching braces highlighted, or even block ranges marked.
> >
> > in what form you eliminated those curly braces? (i recently found
> >some alternative for consideration too)
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | A Lurker <none@example.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-03 09:27 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <m88cmr$usn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55703 |
Stefan Ram <ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote: > It is futile to try to replace education, attention and > concentration by code conventions. A good point, but I can't help but ask how this squares with your adherence to constant-first comparison. Is that not a code convention that replaces attention and concentration?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-03 11:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <sMQpw.311103$Cy6.155190@fx23.am4> |
| In reply to | #55703 |
On 03/01/2015 02:55, Stefan Ram wrote:
> For example, look at this expression:
>
> 3 * a
> . Now, assume, instead of »a«, I want to treble »a + b«, so:
> 3 *( a + b ).
> The parentheses are important here! Some less-educated
> programmer might forget them! So I will always write:
> 3 *( a )
> , so that the less-educated programmer will not forget them.
> But what does he do? Oops! He wrote:
> 3 *( a )+ b
> Okay, above I have transferred the argumentation regarding
> the braces to parentheses just to show how absurd it is.
What's absurd is comparing linear sequences of statements to nested
terms of an expression.
if you have the statement sequence s1; s2; s3; then the issue is how
that sequence is delimited. Some languages will use existing elements of
the syntax to do so, such as:
... then s1; s2; s3 else ...
... then s1 else ....
(Notice nothing special in the number of statements.)
But C requires {} or doesn't require {}, depending on some completely
arbitrary measure, such as the number of statements in the sequence:
...) {s1; s2; s3;} else ...
...) s1; else ...
>
> If someone write
>
> if( f() ){ printf( "a" ); }
>
> with the idea that this way the braces will not be forgotten
> when later someone adds »printf( "b" );«, how can he avoid
>
> if( f() ){ printf( "a" ); } printf( "b" );
>
> ?
That's another good point that I'd missed in my mini-rant. How many
times have I had code like this:
if (...)
a=b/c; // whatever
And I've then written, in a debug attempt:
if (...)
printf("C= %d\",c);
a=b/c;
and been puzzled why it doesn't work? (And normally there are braces
scattered around but belonging to neighbouring statements.)
With a syntax such as:
if ... then
a:=b/c
endif
it's a much harder error to make. Even using a consistent C style such as:
if (...) {
a=b/c;
}
will help tremendously, but is not as good as the above example. If that
first "{" is missed out, and there happens to be a superfluous {
floating around elsewhere, this could be legal syntax but which happens
to be wrong. (You can't leave out 'then' because that is an immediate
error. Using the {...} everywhere style needs language support.
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-03 15:04 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmag17j.4et.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #55703 |
On Sat, 2015-01-03, Stefan Ram wrote: ... > It is futile to try to replace education, attention and > concentration by code conventions. That one ends up in my collection of aphorisms. Thanks. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-04 10:25 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <cgr521Fr1q0U5@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55703 |
Stefan Ram wrote:
> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>> If someone write
>> if( f() ){ printf( "a" ); }
>> with the idea that this way the braces will not be forgotten
>> Unfortunately, this is not checked by the compiler.
>
> Another example:
>
> if( x >= 0 && x < 7 )result = 1;
> else if( x >= 7 && x < 12 )result = 2;
> else if( x >= 12 && x < 17 )result = 3;
> else if( x >= 17 && x < 41 )result = 4;
> else if( x >= 41 && x < 122 )result = 5;
> else result = -1;
>
> When someone always uses braces for branches and also
> uses a common formatting convention (which I do not use)
> this becomes
The tidy solution is to avoid the if-else latter completely. Something like
int getBucket( int x )
{
if( x >= 0 && x < 7 ) return 1;
if( x < 12 ) return 2;
if( x < 17 ) return 3;
if( x < 41 ) return 4;
if( x < 122 ) return 5;
return -1;
}
--
Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-03 15:44 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <rjogaa156hc5b8mj36om04j03876altobt@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #55770 |
On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 10:25:21 +1300, Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Stefan Ram wrote:
>> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>>> If someone write
>>> if( f() ){ printf( "a" ); }
>>> with the idea that this way the braces will not be forgotten
>>> Unfortunately, this is not checked by the compiler.
>>
>> Another example:
>>
>> if( x >= 0 && x < 7 )result = 1;
>> else if( x >= 7 && x < 12 )result = 2;
>> else if( x >= 12 && x < 17 )result = 3;
>> else if( x >= 17 && x < 41 )result = 4;
>> else if( x >= 41 && x < 122 )result = 5;
>> else result = -1;
>>
>> When someone always uses braces for branches and also
>> uses a common formatting convention (which I do not use)
>> this becomes
>
>The tidy solution is to avoid the if-else latter completely. Something like
>
>int getBucket( int x )
>{
> if( x >= 0 && x < 7 ) return 1;
> if( x < 12 ) return 2;
> if( x < 17 ) return 3;
> if( x < 41 ) return 4;
> if( x < 122 ) return 5;
>
> return -1;
>}
The first if needs to be replaced with:
if (x < 0 ) return -1;
if (x < 7 ) return 1;
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-04 10:59 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <cgr71lFr1q0U7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55774 |
Robert Wessel wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2015 10:25:21 +1300, Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Stefan Ram wrote:
>>> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>>>> If someone write
>>>> if( f() ){ printf( "a" ); }
>>>> with the idea that this way the braces will not be forgotten
>>>> Unfortunately, this is not checked by the compiler.
>>>
>>> Another example:
>>>
>>> if( x >= 0 && x < 7 )result = 1;
>>> else if( x >= 7 && x < 12 )result = 2;
>>> else if( x >= 12 && x < 17 )result = 3;
>>> else if( x >= 17 && x < 41 )result = 4;
>>> else if( x >= 41 && x < 122 )result = 5;
>>> else result = -1;
>>>
>>> When someone always uses braces for branches and also
>>> uses a common formatting convention (which I do not use)
>>> this becomes
>>
>> The tidy solution is to avoid the if-else latter completely. Something like
>>
>> int getBucket( int x )
>> {
>> if( x >= 0 && x < 7 ) return 1;
>> if( x < 12 ) return 2;
>> if( x < 17 ) return 3;
>> if( x < 41 ) return 4;
>> if( x < 122 ) return 5;
>>
>> return -1;
>> }
>
>
> The first if needs to be replaced with:
>
> if (x < 0 ) return -1;
> if (x < 7 ) return 1;
I did say "Something like". I was going to change the first tests to
if( x < 0 || x > 122 ) return -1;
if( x < 7 ) return 1;
My point still stands though.
--
Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-04 10:56 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <cgr6t1Fr1q0U6@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55770 |
Stefan Ram wrote:
> Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes:
>> Stefan Ram wrote:
>>> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>>>> If someone write
>>>> if( f() ){ printf( "a" ); }
>>>> with the idea that this way the braces will not be forgotten
>>>> Unfortunately, this is not checked by the compiler.
>>> Another example:
>>> if( x >= 0 && x < 7 )result = 1;
>>> else if( x >= 7 && x < 12 )result = 2;
>>> else if( x >= 12 && x < 17 )result = 3;
>>> else if( x >= 17 && x < 41 )result = 4;
>>> else if( x >= 41 && x < 122 )result = 5;
>>> else result = -1;
>
> Can you see how your newsreader messed up my indentation?
> In my post, all occurences of the word »if« were aligned.
>
> Such modification of my speech is the reason I have stopped
> to post to the moderated newsgroups for C and C++. Their
> moderation software modified my indentation and the moderation
> was not willing to have me discuss this in the newsgroup.
You appear to use non-standard indentation, which doesn't help. In this
case, I can't see why Thunderbird added an extra space.
>> int getBucket( int x )
>> {
>> if( x >= 0 && x < 7 ) return 1;
>> if( x < 12 ) return 2;
>> if( x < 17 ) return 3;
>> if( x < 41 ) return 4;
>> if( x < 122 ) return 5;
>> return -1;
>> }
>
> If you would work as a maintenance programmer, you now might
> have introduced a bug, as this will return »2« for the case
> of x being »-7«, while the original statement sets »result« to
> »-1« for this case.
>
> The »x >= 0« test in the original statement already hints at
> the possibility that the author of the original statement
> was aware that »x« might be negative.
If this were real code, the unit tests for getBucket would have failed...
--
Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-03 22:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <54a85f59$0$21141$703f8584@textnews.kpn.nl> |
| In reply to | #55703 |
On 03.01.15 21:50, Stefan Ram wrote:
> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>> If someone write
>> if( f() ){ printf( "a" ); }
>> with the idea that this way the braces will not be forgotten
>> Unfortunately, this is not checked by the compiler.
>
> Another example:
>
> if( x >= 0 && x < 7 )result = 1;
> else if( x >= 7 && x < 12 )result = 2;
> else if( x >= 12 && x < 17 )result = 3;
> else if( x >= 17 && x < 41 )result = 4;
> else if( x >= 41 && x < 122 )result = 5;
> else result = -1;
>
> When someone always uses braces for branches and also
> uses a common formatting convention (which I do not use)
> this becomes
>
> if( x >= 0 && x < 7 )
> {
> result = 1;
> }
> else
> {
> if( x >= 7 && x < 12 )
> {
> result = 2;
> }
> else
> {
> if( x >= 12 && x < 17 )
> {
> result = 3;
> }
> else
> {
> if( x >= 17 && x < 41 )
> {
> result = 4;
> }
> else
> {
> if( x >= 41 && x < 122 )
> {
> result = 5;
> }
> else
> {
> result = -1;
> }
> }
> }
> }
> }
>
> which I deem less readable.
>
>
and what about :
if( x >= 0 && x < 7 ){result = 1;/*and maybe some more*/}
else if( x >= 7 && x < 12){result = 2;}
else if( x >= 12 && x < 17){result = 3;}
else if( x >= 17 && x < 41){result = 4;}
else if( x >= 41 && x < 122){result = 5;}
else {result = -1;}
Of course one line for each keyword makes things unreadable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-03 14:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <7587b685-9466-49dd-acf4-da7143d81ab6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55771 |
On Saturday, January 3, 2015 9:34:21 PM UTC, Sjouke Burry wrote:
> On 03.01.15 21:50, Stefan Ram wrote:
> > ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
> >> If someone write
> >> if( f() ){ printf( "a" ); }
> >> with the idea that this way the braces will not be forgotten
> >> Unfortunately, this is not checked by the compiler.
> >
> > Another example:
> >
> > if( x >= 0 && x < 7 )result = 1;
> > else if( x >= 7 && x < 12 )result = 2;
> > else if( x >= 12 && x < 17 )result = 3;
> > else if( x >= 17 && x < 41 )result = 4;
> > else if( x >= 41 && x < 122 )result = 5;
> > else result = -1;
> >
> > When someone always uses braces for branches and also
> > uses a common formatting convention (which I do not use)
> > this becomes
> >
> > if( x >= 0 && x < 7 )
> > {
> > result = 1;
> > }
> > else
> > {
> > if( x >= 7 && x < 12 )
> > {
> > result = 2;
> > }
> > else
> > {
> > if( x >= 12 && x < 17 )
> > {
> > result = 3;
> > }
> > else
> > {
> > if( x >= 17 && x < 41 )
> > {
> > result = 4;
> > }
> > else
> > {
> > if( x >= 41 && x < 122 )
> > {
> > result = 5;
> > }
> > else
> > {
> > result = -1;
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > }
> > }
> >
> > which I deem less readable.
> >
> >
> and what about :
> if( x >= 0 && x < 7 ){result = 1;/*and maybe some more*/}
> else if( x >= 7 && x < 12){result = 2;}
> else if( x >= 12 && x < 17){result = 3;}
> else if( x >= 17 && x < 41){result = 4;}
> else if( x >= 41 && x < 122){result = 5;}
> else {result = -1;}
>
> Of course one line for each keyword makes things unreadable.
int bucketlimits[6] = {0, 7, 12, 17, 41, 122};
for(i=0;i<5;i++)
if(x >= bucketlimits[i] && x <= bucketlimits[i+1])
{
result = i + 1; /* is result necessarily i + 1 or have we just
put that in as sort of safe default value ?
Doing it this way reveals that sort of thing. */
break;
}
if(i == 5)
{
result = -1;
}
Now bucketlimits and Nbuckets (potentially) are flexible.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web