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 5 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 13 Next page →
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-02 13:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87ppax9vj7.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #55673 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: <snip> > "Type safety" is there because its something that compilers can > do. What we really need is a language with variables with units, > so if you add cents to dollars you get an amount in dollars, > if you divide a distance in kilometers by a time in seconds, you > get a velocity, and so on. That would be real type safety. The C++ boost/units library is interesting though I've not used it in anger. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-03 13:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmafsmf.4et.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #55673 |
On Fri, 2015-01-02, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Friday, January 2, 2015 1:17:27 AM UTC, Ian Collins wrote: ... >> I guess the C++ solution just makes fewer safety tradeoffs to get the >> same level of performance. >> > Really it's a case of the flexiblity and elegance of void *s over > the risk of interpreting the void * as the wrong data type. From > experience, "type safety" doesn't win you much, yes there are a > few bugs it will catch, but it tends to generate reams of type- > conversion code to do null operations or simple assignments, > which is going to add bugs because more code means more bugs. > > "Type safety" is there because its something that compilers can > do. Then you've missed out on something. Static typing can be a real life-saver. In C too, but it's more convenient in C++, where the "reams of type conversion code" isn't necessary and where you have operator overloading. But to understand that you need to actually define distinct types for distinct concepts. A lot of people (even in C++) don't, and spend much of their time fighting ints and chars which aren't really integers or characters ... /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-03 07:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ab50c00c-6f62-4e76-b2c0-398ea0cd74f3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55725 |
On Saturday, January 3, 2015 1:47:06 PM UTC, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>
> Then you've missed out on something. Static typing can be a real
> life-saver. In C too, but it's more convenient in C++, where the
> "reams of type conversion code" isn't necessary and where you have
> operator overloading.
>
> But to understand that you need to actually define distinct types for
> distinct concepts. A lot of people (even in C++) don't, and spend
> much of their time fighting ints and chars which aren't really
> integers or characters ...
>
An enumerated type isn't strictly an integer, unless you use it as
an index into an array, which in C you are extremely likely to do.
You can say, with some justice, that we should declare a higher
level "enumeration index" for tables of data accessed by enums.
But then you're not programming in C.
However what I was referring to is this sort of thing
typedef int DWORD;
typedef struct
{
DWORD x;
DWORD y;
} IPOINT;
void getcursorpos(IPOINT *pos)
So now to use it, we got to go
int hittest(HIGHLEVELOBJECT *world)
{
IPOINT cpoint;
Point2 pt;
int i;
getcursorpos(&cpoint);
pt.x = cpoint,x;
pt.y = cpoint.y;
for(i=0;i<world->Nobjects;i++)
if( point_distance(world->object[i]->origin, &pt) < world->object[i].radius)
{
return expensivehittest(world, i, &pt)
}
}
You've got two point variables going, holding the same information,
maybe even binary compatible with each other. As hittest gathers
accretions to cope with problems in the system, it gets progressively
hard to understand. Of course if point_distance() isn't a simple
Pythagoras but something fancy which takes several points, in a
Point2d structure, then it become even more convoluted. And all for
essentially no computation or machine operation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-03 18:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmagdcv.4et.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #55731 |
On Sat, 2015-01-03, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Saturday, January 3, 2015 1:47:06 PM UTC, Jorgen Grahn wrote: >> >> Then you've missed out on something. Static typing can be a real >> life-saver. In C too, but it's more convenient in C++, where the >> "reams of type conversion code" isn't necessary and where you have >> operator overloading. >> >> But to understand that you need to actually define distinct types for >> distinct concepts. A lot of people (even in C++) don't, and spend >> much of their time fighting ints and chars which aren't really >> integers or characters ... >> > An enumerated type isn't strictly an integer, unless you use it as > an index into an array, which in C you are extremely likely to do. > You can say, with some justice, that we should declare a higher > level "enumeration index" for tables of data accessed by enums. > But then you're not programming in C. Did you get the impression I was talking about enums, or did you change the subject? I was thinking of real, distinct types. In C that pretty much means structs. /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 08:09 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <cgqt38Fr1q0U3@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55731 |
Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Saturday, January 3, 2015 1:47:06 PM UTC, Jorgen Grahn wrote:
>>
>> Then you've missed out on something. Static typing can be a real
>> life-saver. In C too, but it's more convenient in C++, where the
>> "reams of type conversion code" isn't necessary and where you have
>> operator overloading.
>>
>> But to understand that you need to actually define distinct types for
>> distinct concepts. A lot of people (even in C++) don't, and spend
>> much of their time fighting ints and chars which aren't really
>> integers or characters ...
>>
<snip>
>
> However what I was referring to is this sort of thing
>
> typedef int DWORD;
>
> typedef struct
> {
> DWORD x;
> DWORD y;
> } IPOINT;
>
> void getcursorpos(IPOINT *pos)
>
> So now to use it, we got to go
>
> int hittest(HIGHLEVELOBJECT *world)
> {
> IPOINT cpoint;
> Point2 pt;
> int i;
>
> getcursorpos(&cpoint);
> pt.x = cpoint,x;
> pt.y = cpoint.y;
>
> for(i=0;i<world->Nobjects;i++)
> if( point_distance(world->object[i]->origin, &pt) < world->object[i].radius)
> {
> return expensivehittest(world, i, &pt)
> }
> }
>
> You've got two point variables going, holding the same information,
> maybe even binary compatible with each other.
Why?
> As hittest gathers
> accretions to cope with problems in the system, it gets progressively
> hard to understand.
It's the macro like type names, lack of white-space and impenetrable
function names that make it hard to understand.
--
Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-03 12:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ln387ry654.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #55731 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
[...]
> An enumerated type isn't strictly an integer, unless you use it as
> an index into an array, which in C you are extremely likely to do.
Yes, it is. N1570 6.2.5p17:
The type char, the signed and unsigned integer types, and the
enumerated types are collectively called integer types. The
integer and real floating types are collectively called real
types.
And why would using it as an array index make a difference?
[...]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"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 | 2015-01-03 14:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fd749671-f2f3-4e17-aa54-e7566cb806a3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55765 |
On Saturday, January 3, 2015 8:13:35 PM UTC, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> [...]
> > An enumerated type isn't strictly an integer, unless you use it as
> > an index into an array, which in C you are extremely likely to do.
>
> Yes, it is. N1570 6.2.5p17:
>
> The type char, the signed and unsigned integer types, and the
> enumerated types are collectively called integer types. The
> integer and real floating types are collectively called real
> types.
>
> And why would using it as an array index make a difference?
>
Let's say we've got
enum title
{
MR,
MRS,
MISS,
MS,
DR,
SIR,
REV,
PROF,
LORD,
HRH,
HER_MAJESTY
};
of course the stupid compiler will say that MS + 1 == DR. But that's just
a limitation of the system. Whilst I've arranged the titles vaguely
in order of dignity, they don't have a necessary or indisputable ordering.
However we can reasonably say
const char *titlenames[] =
{
"Mr", "Mrs", "Miss", "Ms", "Dr", "Sir, "Rev", "Prof", "Lord", "HRH",
"Her Majesty"
};
then
void sendletter(enum title t, char *name, char *text)
{
printf("Dear %s %s'\n", tilenames[t], name);
}
So now it becomes true to say that there is ordering. t has become
an integer, rather than a categorical value that we happen to represent
in a binary computer.
However the above example shouldn't really be allowed, in UtopiaCode.
The association between the array and the enums should depend on the
bit representation of "MS" and "DR".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-03 14:45 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lnlhljwkk1.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #55781 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Saturday, January 3, 2015 8:13:35 PM UTC, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
>> [...]
>> > An enumerated type isn't strictly an integer, unless you use it as
>> > an index into an array, which in C you are extremely likely to do.
>>
>> Yes, it is. N1570 6.2.5p17:
>>
>> The type char, the signed and unsigned integer types, and the
>> enumerated types are collectively called integer types. The
>> integer and real floating types are collectively called real
>> types.
>>
>> And why would using it as an array index make a difference?
>>
> Let's say we've got
>
> enum title
> {
> MR,
> MRS,
> MISS,
> MS,
> DR,
> SIR,
> REV,
> PROF,
> LORD,
> HRH,
> HER_MAJESTY
> };
Ok, "enum title" is an enumeration type, which means it's an integer
type.
> of course the stupid compiler will say that MS + 1 == DR. But that's just
> a limitation of the system. Whilst I've arranged the titles vaguely
> in order of dignity, they don't have a necessary or indisputable ordering.
There's nothing stupid about it. The compiler is simply following the
clear and unambiguous rules imposed by the language. If you find that
"+" is not a useful operation to use on values of that type, then don't
use it.
If you want a non-integer type with just the characteristics you need,
you can define a struct. If you want to define a type that supports a
particular subset of operations (for example, literals that are constant
expressions but no arithmetic), then that's probably not something you
can do in C.
C doesn't have Pascal-style enumeration types.
> However we can reasonably say
>
> const char *titlenames[] =
> {
> "Mr", "Mrs", "Miss", "Ms", "Dr", "Sir, "Rev", "Prof", "Lord", "HRH",
> "Her Majesty"
> };
>
> then
>
> void sendletter(enum title t, char *name, char *text)
> {
> printf("Dear %s %s'\n", tilenames[t], name);
>
> }
>
> So now it becomes true to say that there is ordering. t has become
> an integer, rather than a categorical value that we happen to represent
> in a binary computer.
The ordering was there all along. The only difference is that it became
meaningful in your application. Yes, the type "enum title" is *still*
an integer type. Using it as an array index made no difference.
> However the above example shouldn't really be allowed, in UtopiaCode.
> The association between the array and the enums should depend on the
> bit representation of "MS" and "DR".
Sorry, I though we were talking about C.
There are plenty of ways a language could define enumeration types. You
seem to want them to be non-integer types, not compatible with any other
types, so that
enum title obj = 42;
would be an error. There are languages that do support that kind of
enumeration type, and others that might let you define such a type
yourself. But if you talk about enumeration types *in C*, and you're
not referring to enumeration types *as defined by C*, it would be
helpful if you'd at least mention that.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-05 15:14 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <54aaa7c1.16970718@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #55784 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> > of course the stupid compiler will say that MS + 1 == DR. But that's just
> > a limitation of the system. Whilst I've arranged the titles vaguely
> > in order of dignity, they don't have a necessary or indisputable ordering.
>
> There's nothing stupid about it. The compiler is simply following the
> clear and unambiguous rules imposed by the language. If you find that
> "+" is not a useful operation to use on values of that type, then don't
> use it.
>
> If you want a non-integer type with just the characteristics you need,
> you can define a struct. If you want to define a type that supports a
> particular subset of operations (for example, literals that are constant
> expressions but no arithmetic), then that's probably not something you
> can do in C.
>
> C doesn't have Pascal-style enumeration types.
And keep in mind that Pascal's enumerated types still support succ() and
pred(). So where, in C, you write
enumvar++;
in Pascal you can write
enumvar:=succ(enumvar);
and where in C you can use the hated
enum1=enum2+3;
in Pascal you can just as easily, if a little more volubly, use
enum1:=succ(succ(succ(enum2)));
You can't multiply enumerated values in Pascal, true. But I've never
seen anyone do that with C enums, either. It's possible, but who does
it? And why is it a problem?
> > However we can reasonably say
> >
> > const char *titlenames[] =
> > {
> > "Mr", "Mrs", "Miss", "Ms", "Dr", "Sir, "Rev", "Prof", "Lord", "HRH",
> > "Her Majesty"
> > };
> >
> > then
> >
> > void sendletter(enum title t, char *name, char *text)
> > {
> > printf("Dear %s %s'\n", tilenames[t], name);
> >
> > }
> >
> > So now it becomes true to say that there is ordering. t has become
> > an integer, rather than a categorical value that we happen to represent
> > in a binary computer.
>
> The ordering was there all along. The only difference is that it became
> meaningful in your application. Yes, the type "enum title" is *still*
> an integer type. Using it as an array index made no difference.
And here, too, Pascal requires enumerated types to support ord(). So you
could still write
writeln('Dear ', titlenames[ord(t)], name);
> There are plenty of ways a language could define enumeration types. You
> seem to want them to be non-integer types, not compatible with any other
> types, so that
> enum title obj = 42;
> would be an error.
Pascal does not, I think, allow you to do that. This can on occasion be
quite a pain in the arse, as when someone has created an enumerated type
for the months of the year, and you want to set it to the sixth month -
without knowing in advance that it'll be the sixth month you want, and
not the fifth or the ninth.
Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-04 11:52 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <cgra5lFr1q0U8@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #55781 |
Malcolm McLean wrote: <snip> > So now it becomes true to say that there is ordering. t has become > an integer, rather than a categorical value that we happen to represent > in a binary computer. > > However the above example shouldn't really be allowed, in UtopiaCode. > The association between the array and the enums should depend on the > bit representation of "MS" and "DR". As is often the case, C++ offers at least part of what you want in "UtopiaCode" with scoped and strongly typed enums. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-03 15:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d62b2bfc-b26c-43c6-a457-f877fd640ce3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55785 |
On Saturday, January 3, 2015 10:52:46 PM UTC, Ian Collins wrote:
> Malcolm McLean wrote:
>
> > However the above example shouldn't really be allowed, in UtopiaCode.
> > The association between the array and the enums should depend on the
> > bit representation of "MS" and "DR".
>
> As is often the case, C++ offers at least part of what you want in
> "UtopiaCode" with scoped and strongly typed enums.
>
In UtopiaCode, the array "titlenames" is only accessible by an enum
title. In Perl it's easy enough to set up via a hash, though I
can't remember the awful convoluted syntax.
printf("%s\n", titlenames[MS]);
should always output "Ms", regardless of the underlying encoding.
printf("%s\n", titlenames[YOURSSINCERELY]);
where we've set up a similar enumeration for signature lines, should
generate an error.
You can set this up in C++ with templates and overloading the []
operator, in fact I might do that as an experiment.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-02 06:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <19d49503-037c-439f-b247-07d9638b9e09@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55669 |
W dniu piątek, 2 stycznia 2015 02:17:27 UTC+1 użytkownik Ian Collins napisał: > 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... > > > > One does not have to compare templates with void*s. One can compare > > them with macros. Then, often, one just loses type safety, but not > > speed. > > Algorithms such as sorting (especially for user defined types) are the > obvious example where templates trump macros for performance. > > > Move semantics copies a struct pointer instead of the whole struct, > > which can be done with C, but in C, we do not even need to mark the > > move source as invalid, which again is less safe, but faster or not > > slower. > > I agree it's almost always possible to mimic C++ features in C, however > move semantics save the (C++) from having to hand code containers to > squeeze out extra performance. > > I guess the C++ solution just makes fewer safety tradeoffs to get the > same level of performance. > > > What is left might be »constexpr«, but the C compiler will do some > > calculations at compile time even without »constexpr«, or the C > > programmer could use macros for »constexpr« functions or generated > > code. > > I haven't made any direct comparisons, but I expect there are cases such > as working with structs where constexpr would be a win over macros. > > > 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++. > > I haven't looked... > all the four-c clones (java, cs, obj-c, c++) may go same speed as c as they allow embed pure c-inherited code in loops other thing are 1) spirit of language 2) some code bloat it is maybe a bit hard to define spirit of c++ for anybody (at least i do not feel it though i am not using c++), same with spirit of other three competitors, Im not sure if coding in their native spirit is so efficient as coding in c spirit - probably 4c-clone likers would argue that theirs spirit includes thinning c-way like loops 9to simple types and array acces), and that c spirit itself is not quite neccessarey the same as (somewhat c-related) optimistaion spirit [i taka both of those arguments as they seem true for me, so 4c-clones are not lost here in this race imo] on the other topic there is probably something like code bloat question, c is simple language historically friendly to machine transparency, other 4c-clones as i vaguelly remember were making some hl- postulates to drop this transparent heritage of c - though in reality it shows to not work much imo, and both c is not so cleanly transparent and competitors not so much untransparrent ;/ (mo it just showed that c paradigms are still rulling though the world is maybe more confused now) anyway this bloat probably is taking some place, i mean c coder is probabry statistically much closer to reverse engeenering things exacutables are harder to trash and thus in general this has some influence on simplicity of some low level layers and general tendency to avoiding efficiency glitches (though as i said this is more like some 'statistics' probably than neccessity as probably 4c-clones can be also put in pair as ta succesfull tool for advanced reverse engineering master-coder (im not sure but probably) [this is how i see it in general] [from this point of view i may add i do not quite see c as most ideal possible language for code optymisers, imo it is like it lask some platform specyfic addons/improvements-enhancements maybe also its style is not 100% ideal for optymisers (maybe in my work on C2 i will try to improve it)]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-02 14:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Lmypw.355986$812.271127@fx20.am4> |
| In reply to | #55680 |
On 02/01/2015 14:41, fir wrote: > all the four-c clones (java, cs, obj-c, c++) > may go same speed as c as they allow embed pure c-inherited code in loops Most of the speed is due to the compiler, not so much the language. Try using gcc -O0 for example, and see how fast it is then! Same language... > on the other topic there is probably something like code bloat question, c is simple language > historically friendly to machine transparency, That's a bit of a myth. C goes out of its way to hide hardware details as much as possible. Until stdint.h was introduced (decades after C was created) it was actually quite difficult to define an 'int' type of a specific width (and one that would be the same width compiled elsewhere). C is even cagey about how many bits there are in a byte, that's if it even admits to the existence of a 'byte' type at all. And don't dare to mention hardware stacks in this newsgroup... Its aims to encourage people to write portable code are admirable, but sometimes you have to write a piece of code for a very specific machine X, you have a deadline Y, and a performance target of Z. In that case you don't particularly care about portability. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-02 07:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5730e7bd-73d8-44b4-837c-b5bdd74023a2@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55681 |
W dniu piątek, 2 stycznia 2015 15:59:00 UTC+1 użytkownik Bart napisał: > On 02/01/2015 14:41, fir wrote: > > > all the four-c clones (java, cs, obj-c, c++) > > may go same speed as c as they allow embed pure c-inherited code in loops > > Most of the speed is due to the compiler, not so much the language. Try > using gcc -O0 for example, and see how fast it is then! Same language... > > > on the other topic there is probably something like code bloat question, c is simple language > > historically friendly to machine transparency, > > That's a bit of a myth. C goes out of its way to hide hardware details > as much as possible. > well, im not sure if i would agree with a word 'hide' here, imo this is maybe more to 'give' a c programmer a set of limited means (ways) to use given architecture (in the aim to code being more portable) not about hiding, [giving subset of resources is not hiding] - imo hiding was never an ideology against c (probably) as its spirit is in whole quite opposite every c coder is almost expected to know how some things are looking on the machine level (i dont know other language with such strong attitude, c++ may be more about hiding > Until stdint.h was introduced (decades after C was created) it was > actually quite difficult to define an 'int' type of a specific width > (and one that would be the same width compiled elsewhere). > > C is even cagey about how many bits there are in a byte, that's if it > even admits to the existence of a 'byte' type at all. > > And don't dare to mention hardware stacks in this newsgroup... > > Its aims to encourage people to write portable code are admirable, but > sometimes you have to write a piece of code for a very specific machine > X, you have a deadline Y, and a performance target of Z. In that case > you don't particularly care about portability. > > -- > Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-02 16:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <JYzpw.367204$ot.83773@fx13.am4> |
| In reply to | #55682 |
On 02/01/2015 15:31, fir wrote: > W dniu piątek, 2 stycznia 2015 15:59:00 UTC+1 użytkownik Bart napisał: >> On 02/01/2015 14:41, fir wrote: >>> on the other topic there is probably something like code bloat question, c is simple language >>> historically friendly to machine transparency, >> >> That's a bit of a myth. C goes out of its way to hide hardware details >> as much as possible. >> > > well, im not sure if i would agree with a word 'hide' here, imo this is maybe more to 'give' a c programmer a set of limited means (ways) to use given architecture (in the aim to code being more portable) not about hiding, [giving subset of resources is not hiding] - imo hiding was never an ideology against c (probably) as its spirit is in whole quite opposite every c coder is almost expected to know how some things are looking on the machine level (i dont know other language with such strong attitude, c++ may be more about hiding I think 'abstraction' is the better word. But it does a good job of hiding hardware stacks, registers, flags, and a plethora of other machine-specific details. If you're writing OSes and drivers as has been mentioned, much of which will be platform-specific, then this stuff can be important. Or you might for example have a straightforward requirement, such as a char array which starts at a specific memory location, and there is no direct way to express that in C afaik; you have to use subterfuge or make use of pointers. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-02 08:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ln7fx5xhy5.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #55681 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> C is even cagey about how many bits there are in a byte, that's if it
> even admits to the existence of a 'byte' type at all.
[...]
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".
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-03 14:03 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m88pac$7fj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55685 |
On 02/01/15 17:31, Keith Thompson wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > [...] >> C is even cagey about how many bits there are in a byte, that's if it >> even admits to the existence of a 'byte' type at all. > [...] > > Defining it as the macro CHAR_BIT in <stddef.h> isn't what I'd > call "cagey". And C does have a byte type; it just spells it > "unsigned char". > True - but C also uses a different definition of "byte" from most people (including most C programmers).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-03 13:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87tx086m2e.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #55719 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > On 02/01/15 17:31, Keith Thompson wrote: >> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> [...] >>> C is even cagey about how many bits there are in a byte, that's if it >>> even admits to the existence of a 'byte' type at all. >> [...] >> >> Defining it as the macro CHAR_BIT in <stddef.h> isn't what I'd >> call "cagey". And C does have a byte type; it just spells it >> "unsigned char". >> > > True - but C also uses a different definition of "byte" from most > people (including most C programmers). For obvious reasons there is much scope for confusion when talking about what most people mean by something, but C's definition: 3.6 byte addressable unit of data storage large enough to hold any member of the basic character set of the execution environment closely matches mine and several others that I just searched for. What did you have in mind (or, maybe I should say in what did you have in most people's minds) when you said that? -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-03 09:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <m88t9g$no9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #55721 |
On 01/03/2015 08:16 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: ... >> True - but C also uses a different definition of "byte" from most >> people (including most C programmers). > > For obvious reasons there is much scope for confusion when talking about > what most people mean by something, but C's definition: > > 3.6 > byte > addressable unit of data storage large enough to hold any member of > the basic character set of the execution environment > > closely matches mine and several others that I just searched for. What > did you have in mind (or, maybe I should say in what did you have in > most people's minds) when you said that? Surely you're aware that many (probably most) people consider "a size of exactly 8 bits" to be an integral part of the definition? Wiktionary lists that as the second definition, after mentioning in the first definition that the size is "nearly always eight bits". -- James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-01-03 15:07 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnmag1dp.4et.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #55727 |
On Sat, 2015-01-03, James Kuyper wrote: > On 01/03/2015 08:16 AM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > ... >>> True - but C also uses a different definition of "byte" from most >>> people (including most C programmers). >> >> For obvious reasons there is much scope for confusion when talking about >> what most people mean by something, but C's definition: >> >> 3.6 >> byte >> addressable unit of data storage large enough to hold any member of >> the basic character set of the execution environment >> >> closely matches mine and several others that I just searched for. What >> did you have in mind (or, maybe I should say in what did you have in >> most people's minds) when you said that? > > Surely you're aware that many (probably most) people consider "a size of > exactly 8 bits" to be an integral part of the definition? Wiktionary > lists that as the second definition, after mentioning in the first > definition that the size is "nearly always eight bits". Those people have never written code for e.g. a Texas DSP ... /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 13 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 13 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web