Groups > comp.lang.c > #53628 > unrolled thread

Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89?

Started by	Kamel Biskri <email@domain.com>
First post	2014-11-28 23:45 +0100
Last post	2015-02-06 09:12 -0500
Articles	20 on this page of 129 — 23 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →

#57017

From	wpihughes@gmail.com
Date	2015-02-05 13:34 -0800
Message-ID	<e6acfbc6-c489-4931-b467-00c5469b8e07@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#57016

On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 5:24:39 PM UTC-4, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2015-02-05, wpihughes@gmail.com <wpihughes@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 11:01:46 AM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >
> >> To be fair to both of us, modern syntax-colouring editors make both 
> >> problems far less likely to hold us up for very long.
> >
> >
> > Modern?   Syntax-colouring editors certainly predate C99.
> >
> > -William Hughes
> >
> > P.S.  nice to see colour spelled correctly
> 
> Bullshit; the word comes to us from Latin, via Old French. Both of these
> had it as "color"! There is no need to add any goddamned 'u', let alone
> one that serves absolutely no purpose, since it is *silent*.

The "u" is their too stress test spell chequers.   

-William Hughes

You have no honour

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57019

From	Bartc <bc@freeuk.com>
Date	2015-02-05 21:43 +0000
Message-ID	<mb0o4a$eiq$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#57016

On 05/02/2015 21:24, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2015-02-05, wpihughes@gmail.com <wpihughes@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 11:01:46 AM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
>>> To be fair to both of us, modern syntax-colouring editors make both
>>> problems far less likely to hold us up for very long.
>>
>>
>> Modern?   Syntax-colouring editors certainly predate C99.
>>
>> -William Hughes
>>
>> P.S.  nice to see colour spelled correctly
>
> Bullshit; the word comes to us from Latin, via Old French. Both of these
> had it as "color"! There is no need to add any goddamned 'u', let alone
> one that serves absolutely no purpose, since it is *silent*.

I think Old French had it as 'colour'.

But never mind how it came about; English doesn't use phonetic spelling, 
and in the UK, it's spelt 'colour'.

It doesn't matter that some letters are silent or it isn't spelt exactly 
as pronounced (which would make it more like 'culler'). It is necessary 
to use 'colour' (in those regions using British English) to show that 
you're not ignorant.

Try spelling all of 'poor', 'paw', 'pore', 'pour' etc as 'por' and see 
how far you get!

-- 
Bartc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57025

From	wpihughes@gmail.com
Date	2015-02-05 13:58 -0800
Message-ID	<183a8d3f-1d70-4d35-bdd6-f79db1b6cf09@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#57019

On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 5:43:18 PM UTC-4, Bart wrote:

> in the UK, it's spelt 'colour'.

Get it right. "spelt" is a grain.
If you want the past of the verb spell
use "spelled". 

-William Hughes

Canadian usage is the only correct usage, eh!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57027

From	Bartc <bc@freeuk.com>
Date	2015-02-05 22:07 +0000
Message-ID	<mb0ph6$kh2$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#57025

On 05/02/2015 21:58, wpihughes@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 5:43:18 PM UTC-4, Bart wrote:
>
>> in the UK, it's spelt 'colour'.
>
> Get it right. "spelt" is a grain.
> If you want the past of the verb spell
> use "spelled".

Both forms are valid.

And the spelling (of colour) is the same in the present and foreseeable 
future too!

-- 
Bartc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57029

From	Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca>
Date	2015-02-05 18:11 -0500
Message-ID	<bMSAw.1206530$No4.943825@fx19.iad>
In reply to	#57019

On Thursday February 5 2015 16:43, in comp.lang.c, "Bartc" <bc@freeuk.com>
wrote:

> On 05/02/2015 21:24, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
>> On 2015-02-05, wpihughes@gmail.com <wpihughes@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 11:01:46 AM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> To be fair to both of us, modern syntax-colouring editors make both
>>>> problems far less likely to hold us up for very long.
>>>
>>>
>>> Modern?   Syntax-colouring editors certainly predate C99.
>>>
>>> -William Hughes
>>>
>>> P.S.  nice to see colour spelled correctly
>>
>> Bullshit; the word comes to us from Latin, via Old French. Both of these
>> had it as "color"! There is no need to add any goddamned 'u', let alone
>> one that serves absolutely no purpose, since it is *silent*.
> 
> I think Old French had it as 'colour'.
> 
> But never mind how it came about; English doesn't use phonetic spelling,
> and in the UK, it's spelt 'colour'.

In Canada as well.

> It doesn't matter that some letters are silent or it isn't spelt exactly
> as pronounced (which would make it more like 'culler'). It is necessary
> to use 'colour' (in those regions using British English) to show that
> you're not ignorant.
> 
> Try spelling all of 'poor', 'paw', 'pore', 'pour' etc as 'por' and see
> how far you get!

How about gaol? It is pronounced exactly the way it is spelled: jAl (soft G,
hard A, (unpronounced hard O) L). But, in North America, it is (perhaps
mis)spelled "jail" and pronounced jAl (soft G, hard A, (unpronounced soft
i) L).

Languages, pronunciation, and spelling change region-to-region. We Canadians
have learned to tolerate software spell-checkers telling us that we've
misspelled colour or favour. We keep on spelling them that way, anyways.


-- 
Lew Pitcher
"In Skills, We Trust"
PGP public key available upon request

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57031

From	Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com>
Date	2015-02-06 12:15 +1300
Message-ID	<cjibs8Fq43fU5@mid.individual.net>
In reply to	#57029

Lew Pitcher wrote:
> On Thursday February 5 2015 16:43, in comp.lang.c, "Bartc" <bc@freeuk.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> But never mind how it came about; English doesn't use phonetic spelling,
>> and in the UK, it's spelt 'colour'.
>
> In Canada as well.

It's a shame people keep using the terms US English and British English.

It's better to say US English and everyone else's English :)

-- 
Ian Collins

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57043

From	David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Date	2015-02-06 10:08 +0100
Message-ID	<mb20a0$b7r$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#57031

On 06/02/15 00:15, Ian Collins wrote:
> Lew Pitcher wrote:
>> On Thursday February 5 2015 16:43, in comp.lang.c, "Bartc"
>> <bc@freeuk.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> But never mind how it came about; English doesn't use phonetic spelling,
>>> and in the UK, it's spelt 'colour'.
>>
>> In Canada as well.
> 
> It's a shame people keep using the terms US English and British English.
> 
> It's better to say US English and everyone else's English :)
> 

No, the correct terms are US English and /proper/ English!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57045

From	Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk>
Date	2015-02-06 09:19 +0000
Message-ID	<mb20t1$emh$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#57043

On 06/02/15 09:08, David Brown wrote:
> On 06/02/15 00:15, Ian Collins wrote:
>> Lew Pitcher wrote:
>>> On Thursday February 5 2015 16:43, in comp.lang.c, "Bartc"
>>> <bc@freeuk.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But never mind how it came about; English doesn't use phonetic spelling,
>>>> and in the UK, it's spelt 'colour'.
>>>
>>> In Canada as well.
>>
>> It's a shame people keep using the terms US English and British English.
>>
>> It's better to say US English and everyone else's English :)
>>
>
> No, the correct terms are US English and /proper/ English!

Well, no. There's just English, and people get to choose whether to use 
it correctly or incorrectly.

The term "British English" is an abomination. Next you'll be asking us 
to put our country's name on our stamps.

I'm beginning to think it's high time we sorted out this colonial 
rebellion that's been festering for the last two and a half centuries. 
They've been getting far too boisterous recently. And they keep turning 
up late when there's a war on. They need to be brought into line. Hmmm? 
No no no, I don't know how exactly. That's one for the strategy boffins. 
But I expect it will involve sending in a gunboat or something. It 
usually does.

-- 
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]

#57048

From	Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com>
Date	2015-02-06 03:34 -0600
Message-ID	<9f29da5d48ukvmlu3dhpvbfkep0r2vlkpv@4ax.com>
In reply to	#57045

On Fri, 06 Feb 2015 09:19:00 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

>On 06/02/15 09:08, David Brown wrote:
>> On 06/02/15 00:15, Ian Collins wrote:
>>> Lew Pitcher wrote:
>>>> On Thursday February 5 2015 16:43, in comp.lang.c, "Bartc"
>>>> <bc@freeuk.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> But never mind how it came about; English doesn't use phonetic spelling,
>>>>> and in the UK, it's spelt 'colour'.
>>>>
>>>> In Canada as well.
>>>
>>> It's a shame people keep using the terms US English and British English.
>>>
>>> It's better to say US English and everyone else's English :)
>>>
>>
>> No, the correct terms are US English and /proper/ English!
>
>
>Well, no. There's just English, and people get to choose whether to use 
>it correctly or incorrectly.
>
>The term "British English" is an abomination. Next you'll be asking us 
>to put our country's name on our stamps.
>
>I'm beginning to think it's high time we sorted out this colonial 
>rebellion that's been festering for the last two and a half centuries. 
>They've been getting far too boisterous recently. And they keep turning 
>up late when there's a war on. They need to be brought into line. Hmmm? 
>No no no, I don't know how exactly. That's one for the strategy boffins. 
>But I expect it will involve sending in a gunboat or something. It 
>usually does.


Well, the last couple of times you tried that, it didn't work out all
that well.  Although I suspect that if you offered to burn Washington
again, a lot of colonials would be willing to look the other way for a
bit...  ;-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57071

From	Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
Date	2015-02-06 08:22 -0800
Message-ID	<ln1tm3ko23.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>
In reply to	#57045

Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
[...]
> I'm beginning to think it's high time we sorted out this colonial
> rebellion that's been festering for the last two and a half
> centuries. They've been getting far too boisterous recently. And they
> keep turning up late when there's a war on. They need to be brought
> into line. Hmmm? No no no, I don't know how exactly. That's one for
> the strategy boffins. But I expect it will involve sending in a
> gunboat or something. It usually does.

No thanks; we already have plenty of gunboats.

-- 
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]

#57050

From	guinness.tony@gmail.com
Date	2015-02-06 03:39 -0800
Message-ID	<146de024-97c3-45eb-9fb4-774ca688c716@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#57043

On Friday, 6 February 2015 09:09:02 UTC, David Brown  wrote:
> On 06/02/15 00:15, Ian Collins wrote:
> > Lew Pitcher wrote:
> >> On Thursday February 5 2015 16:43, in comp.lang.c, "Bartc"
> >> <bc@freeuk.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> But never mind how it came about; English doesn't use phonetic spelling,
> >>> and in the UK, it's spelt 'colour'.
> >>
> >> In Canada as well.
> > 
> > It's a shame people keep using the terms US English and British English.
> > 
> > It's better to say US English and everyone else's English :)
> > 
> 
> No, the correct terms are US English and /proper/ English!

Yanklish and English.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57063

From	Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com>
Date	2015-02-06 15:45 +0000
Message-ID	<20150206071830.966@kylheku.com>
In reply to	#57043

On 2015-02-06, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> On 06/02/15 00:15, Ian Collins wrote:
>> Lew Pitcher wrote:
>>> On Thursday February 5 2015 16:43, in comp.lang.c, "Bartc"
>>> <bc@freeuk.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But never mind how it came about; English doesn't use phonetic spelling,
>>>> and in the UK, it's spelt 'colour'.
>>>
>>> In Canada as well.
>> 
>> It's a shame people keep using the terms US English and British English.
>> 
>> It's better to say US English and everyone else's English :)
>> 
>
> No, the correct terms are US English and /proper/ English!

The US cleans up English for everyone: we can think of it as
Americans are being "doctours without bordeurs" in the area of
grammeur and ourthography.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57051

From	James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net>
Date	2015-02-06 08:31 -0500
Message-ID	<mb2fmr$63u$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#57031

On 02/05/2015 06:15 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
> Lew Pitcher wrote:
>> On Thursday February 5 2015 16:43, in comp.lang.c, "Bartc" <bc@freeuk.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> But never mind how it came about; English doesn't use phonetic spelling,
>>> and in the UK, it's spelt 'colour'.
>>
>> In Canada as well.
> 
> It's a shame people keep using the terms US English and British English.
> 
> It's better to say US English and everyone else's English :)

Why? While a solid majority of native speakers of English are from the
US(58.5%), and those from the UK form the second largest group (15.8%),
those two (groups of) dialects are far from being the only ones in
widespread use. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-speaking_world>
-- 
James Kuyper

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57053

From	Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk>
Date	2015-02-06 13:45 +0000
Message-ID	<mb2gg7$926$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#57051

On 06/02/15 13:31, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 02/05/2015 06:15 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
>> Lew Pitcher wrote:
>>> On Thursday February 5 2015 16:43, in comp.lang.c, "Bartc" <bc@freeuk.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> But never mind how it came about; English doesn't use phonetic spelling,
>>>> and in the UK, it's spelt 'colour'.
>>>
>>> In Canada as well.
>>
>> It's a shame people keep using the terms US English and British English.
>>
>> It's better to say US English and everyone else's English :)
>
> Why? While a solid majority of native speakers of English are from the
> US(58.5%),

Native English speakers are born in England. That's what "native" means.

> and those from the UK form the second largest group (15.8%),

I think you'll find that those born in England form the /only/ group of 
/native/ speakers of English, so that'll be 100%.

> those two (groups of) dialects are far from being the only ones in
> widespread use. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English-speaking_world>

FCVO "English".

-- 
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]

#57058

From	James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net>
Date	2015-02-06 09:18 -0500
Message-ID	<mb2if2$h3g$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#57053

On 02/06/2015 08:45 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 06/02/15 13:31, James Kuyper wrote:
...
>> Why? While a solid majority of native speakers of English are from the
>> US(58.5%),
> 
> Native English speakers are born in England. That's what "native" means.

In US English, native speakers of a language are those who speak that
language as their first language, regardless of where they were born. I
was unaware that this was one of the differences between the two
dialects - and I honestly doubt that it is. I think you're just
redefining the term to support an unsupportable claim.
-- 
James Kuyper

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57059

From	wpihughes@gmail.com
Date	2015-02-06 07:08 -0800
Message-ID	<1e1160ad-246c-482a-b6d3-4489ef1f58a5@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#57058

On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 10:18:53 AM UTC-4, James Kuyper wrote:
> On 02/06/2015 08:45 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> > On 06/02/15 13:31, James Kuyper wrote:
> ...
> >> Why? While a solid majority of native speakers of English are from the
> >> US(58.5%),
> > 
> > Native English speakers are born in England. That's what "native" means.
> 
> In US English, native speakers of a language are those who speak that
> language as their first language, regardless of where they were born. I
> was unaware that this was one of the differences between the two
> dialects - and I honestly doubt that it is. I think you're just
> redefining the term to support an unsupportable claim.


The problem is that the repeated misspellings in the US has rendered
the denizens thereof incapable of recognizing irony or sarcasm.

-William Hughes

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57060

From	Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk>
Date	2015-02-06 15:15 +0000
Message-ID	<mb2lp4$v2g$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#57059

On 06/02/15 15:08, wpihughes@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 10:18:53 AM UTC-4, James Kuyper wrote:
>> On 02/06/2015 08:45 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> > On 06/02/15 13:31, James Kuyper wrote:
>> ...
>> >> Why? While a solid majority of native speakers of English are from the
>> >> US(58.5%),
>> >
>> > Native English speakers are born in England. That's what "native" means.
>>
>> In US English, native speakers of a language are those who speak that
>> language as their first language, regardless of where they were born. I
>> was unaware that this was one of the differences between the two
>> dialects - and I honestly doubt that it is. I think you're just
>> redefining the term to support an unsupportable claim.
>
>
> The problem is that the repeated misspellings in the US has rendered
> the denizens thereof incapable of recognizing irony or sarcasm.
>

s/has/have/ :-)

Actually, I think you're doing James an injustice. He, like me, is just 
keeping a very, very straight face while keeping up one end of an 
extraordinarily silly argument.

-- 
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]

#57061

From	wpihughes@gmail.com
Date	2015-02-06 07:31 -0800
Message-ID	<3f8703f8-bf4b-446d-b9ce-349e81d361fb@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#57060

On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 11:15:34 AM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 06/02/15 15:08, wpihughes@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 10:18:53 AM UTC-4, James Kuyper wrote:
> >> On 02/06/2015 08:45 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >> > On 06/02/15 13:31, James Kuyper wrote:
> >> ...
> >> >> Why? While a solid majority of native speakers of English are from the
> >> >> US(58.5%),
> >> >
> >> > Native English speakers are born in England. That's what "native" means.
> >>
> >> In US English, native speakers of a language are those who speak that
> >> language as their first language, regardless of where they were born. I
> >> was unaware that this was one of the differences between the two
> >> dialects - and I honestly doubt that it is. I think you're just
> >> redefining the term to support an unsupportable claim.
> >
> >
> > The problem is that the repeated misspellings in the US has rendered
> > the denizens thereof incapable of recognizing irony or sarcasm.
> >
> 
> s/has/have/ :-)
> 
> Actually, I think you're doing James an injustice. He, like me, is just 
> keeping a very, very straight face while keeping up one end of an 
> extraordinarily silly argument.

Hoist by my own petard.

-William Hughes

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#57062

From	Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk>
Date	2015-02-06 15:37 +0000
Message-ID	<mb2n28$5ge$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to	#57061

On 06/02/15 15:31, wpihughes@gmail.com wrote:

<snip>

>
> Hoist by my own petard.

Forsooth! Thou art an engineer. A software engineer, presumably.

But I will delve one yard below their mines,
And blow them at the moon: O, 'tis most sweet,
When in one line two crafts directly meet.

-- 
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]

#57070

From	wpihughes@gmail.com
Date	2015-02-06 08:15 -0800
Message-ID	<85a5063f-527d-4145-bcf5-c89c61c222c7@googlegroups.com>
In reply to	#57062

On Friday, February 6, 2015 at 11:37:24 AM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 06/02/15 15:31, wpihughes@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
> >
> > Hoist by my own petard.
> 
> Forsooth! Thou art an engineer. 

A vile calumny!  Lets Toot

-William Hughes

P.S.  Oh saucy Worcestershire...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 Next page →

csiph-web

Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89?

Contents

#57017

#57019

#57025

#57027

#57029

#57031

#57043

#57045

#57048

#57071

#57050

#57063

#57051

#57053

#57058

#57059

#57060

#57061

#57062

#57070