Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #60841 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-04-23 08:09 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-04-25 04:01 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 432 — 38 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 08:09 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 10:56 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-23 21:13 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 11:25 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 10:36 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 11:54 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 11:06 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 12:35 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 11:44 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 12:56 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 12:16 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-23 12:09 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-24 07:52 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-23 16:15 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-24 08:21 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-23 16:44 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-24 13:01 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 04:16 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 12:19 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robbie Hatley <see.my.sig@for.my.address> - 2015-04-24 04:42 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-24 16:07 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robbie Hatley <see.my.sig@for.my.address> - 2015-04-25 22:08 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-26 14:29 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-04-26 15:45 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.lists@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-23 11:43 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-04-23 09:29 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-23 11:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-25 03:03 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 10:53 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.lists@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-23 11:37 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 12:12 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 12:46 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-23 08:47 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Fred K <fred.l.kleinschmidt@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 07:39 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 16:20 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-23 12:43 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-24 01:40 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-24 11:14 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-24 10:02 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-24 18:20 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-24 13:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-04-25 10:25 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-24 23:02 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.lists@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-24 11:30 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-26 08:09 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-26 12:26 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-28 09:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-28 11:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-28 20:09 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 07:11 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-05-09 13:14 +0300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-10 08:23 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-10 11:06 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-11 21:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-10 12:20 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-05-10 13:22 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-10 18:44 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-10 11:12 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-11 21:46 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 10:11 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 18:26 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 11:29 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-13 09:14 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-13 11:55 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-13 14:55 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-13 14:35 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-13 08:24 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-13 18:47 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-13 21:15 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-13 19:40 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-13 21:08 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-13 20:52 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-13 21:06 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-13 23:28 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-14 00:19 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 04:29 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 09:57 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-14 04:56 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-14 11:34 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:24 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-16 01:21 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-17 10:00 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 12:46 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 13:20 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:22 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-16 01:59 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-16 09:51 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-16 05:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-16 19:32 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:13 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-17 10:13 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-13 18:54 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 01:31 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-13 21:05 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-14 00:48 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:27 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-16 02:00 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 09:41 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-14 05:02 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 13:44 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:32 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 20:18 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-05-15 05:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-15 13:47 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-05-16 02:51 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-16 17:13 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-05-17 22:34 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-20 08:47 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-17 10:36 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-17 12:26 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 14:13 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-17 13:45 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 15:02 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-17 14:20 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 15:51 +0100
I'm starting a new thread (Was: Spurious diagnostic messages) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-17 15:00 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-17 07:58 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-17 15:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 22:28 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-20 08:59 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-20 11:58 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages bart4858@gmail.com - 2015-05-20 14:00 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-20 18:10 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages bart4858@gmail.com - 2015-05-21 00:57 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-21 12:40 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages bart4858@gmail.com - 2015-05-21 13:25 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-21 14:33 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-22 09:11 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 08:15 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-22 11:47 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 12:11 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-23 07:26 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 14:14 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-23 09:28 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-22 21:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-05-25 11:36 +0300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-22 14:16 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 08:38 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-22 18:06 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 13:56 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-22 23:38 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-22 18:28 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 16:44 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 07:44 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-24 16:52 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-24 22:19 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-24 22:28 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-25 00:00 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 10:12 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-24 23:13 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-25 11:30 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-05-25 07:41 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-25 17:10 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-25 17:42 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-25 12:20 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 10:07 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-10 20:09 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 11:19 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-11 20:25 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-16 08:48 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-16 14:21 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 08:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 21:21 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-23 02:49 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-23 21:35 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 07:30 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-24 15:35 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 08:13 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-27 18:14 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-01 09:06 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages "Bartc" <bartc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-01 18:26 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-09 08:45 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-23 11:48 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 08:50 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-17 11:49 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 09:06 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-20 18:18 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-20 11:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 20:09 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-20 13:18 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-20 16:24 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 07:59 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-07-21 21:07 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 07:52 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-20 23:17 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-20 15:51 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-24 13:50 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-24 22:45 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-25 18:59 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-25 20:49 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-31 13:22 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 08:48 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-25 12:04 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-26 09:11 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-26 11:26 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-26 22:02 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-26 14:59 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-26 16:58 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-26 16:19 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-27 08:45 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 12:46 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-21 20:41 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-21 13:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 10:19 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-11 08:47 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 13:40 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-21 13:49 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-25 20:17 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-26 16:54 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-31 01:25 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-31 17:46 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-02 06:00 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 16:31 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 13:13 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-25 08:36 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-31 09:01 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-01 08:13 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 01:08 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 14:29 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-03 09:15 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-03 08:22 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-08-22 08:24 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-22 19:24 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 11:02 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-24 20:13 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-30 13:30 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-25 08:12 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 16:56 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-03 08:36 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 17:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-03 18:41 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 11:04 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-26 11:08 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-26 15:35 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-27 00:17 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 00:53 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-27 08:19 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-01 10:10 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-01 13:43 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-08-02 00:04 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 01:16 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-08-02 12:21 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 19:42 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 09:58 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-24 22:22 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-08-01 20:20 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-02 18:57 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-02 08:21 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-01 14:31 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tonton Th <tTh@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-08-01 22:26 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 01:10 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-08-02 09:02 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-02 14:23 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 15:31 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-02 09:01 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 16:56 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-03 10:18 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-03 12:10 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 10:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-24 20:01 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-25 08:16 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-08-03 14:11 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-04 10:56 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-08-01 16:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-02 12:59 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-09 13:39 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 13:37 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-02 13:17 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 19:45 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 15:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-03 09:34 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-04 11:04 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-04 09:07 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-09 13:28 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 14:00 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-05 11:31 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-06 10:47 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-06 13:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 15:53 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 15:45 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-03 09:40 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 11:41 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-04 11:23 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-04 09:12 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-09 13:33 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-06 10:59 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-06 22:21 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-07 13:44 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-20 10:44 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages bart4858@gmail.com - 2015-05-20 13:42 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-20 14:17 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-20 21:25 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-23 10:17 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-23 10:15 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-23 11:46 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-23 17:22 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-05-25 11:49 +0300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-25 10:50 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-23 15:57 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-23 22:51 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-23 19:01 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-23 22:50 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-23 23:41 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-24 00:40 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-05-24 02:57 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-24 07:40 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-24 14:24 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-24 09:23 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-24 15:36 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-24 13:10 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 07:44 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-24 19:26 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-25 00:51 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-25 15:48 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-26 02:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-26 13:23 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-27 00:55 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-29 12:28 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-29 13:44 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-29 15:55 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-29 18:17 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-29 10:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-26 13:27 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-26 21:09 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-27 00:03 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-27 00:59 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 01:15 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-27 13:34 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-27 14:07 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-27 19:53 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-27 21:21 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-05-27 21:45 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-28 17:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-27 10:36 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-27 16:54 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 16:08 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-27 12:18 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 18:39 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-27 22:04 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 21:38 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-27 19:54 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-27 19:58 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-28 14:24 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-27 13:51 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 11:08 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 11:05 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-07-10 18:08 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 07:55 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-07-11 15:02 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-21 14:08 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-21 13:27 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-21 15:30 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-22 15:04 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-25 10:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-21 13:55 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-25 14:18 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 20:16 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-06 09:49 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 22:20 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-28 10:28 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-28 06:00 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 10:22 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 10:32 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-27 17:08 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Thomas Jahns <jahns@idontlikespam.dkrz.de> - 2015-05-28 15:49 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-28 15:03 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-28 14:35 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-28 16:54 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages jadill33@gmail.com - 2015-05-28 10:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Thomas Jahns <jahns@idontlikespam.dkrz.de> - 2015-05-29 10:17 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-27 10:40 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-27 19:56 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-27 13:46 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-27 21:16 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 15:47 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-27 14:08 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-27 22:11 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-27 20:10 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-28 02:21 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-28 03:21 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-05-27 22:17 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 22:22 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-28 14:52 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 18:55 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 15:31 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-05-25 12:11 +0300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-25 11:04 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-25 12:30 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-25 15:41 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-25 15:20 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-24 10:57 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-25 14:31 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-25 22:30 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-25 17:56 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-29 12:34 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-29 14:04 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Alain Ketterlin <alain@universite-de-strasbourg.fr.invalid> - 2015-05-29 15:28 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-05 15:18 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-29 15:31 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-17 15:35 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-17 07:56 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 16:14 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-17 12:57 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-17 15:46 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-18 11:10 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-18 08:56 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-18 18:09 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-18 18:03 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-18 14:41 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-17 15:39 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-17 13:58 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-13 19:17 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> - 2015-05-14 09:54 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-14 08:57 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-14 08:31 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-14 08:33 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-14 14:37 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-14 13:13 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-15 16:26 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-13 18:44 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 12:46 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-22 07:37 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-12 11:23 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 13:08 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-22 06:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-28 12:30 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Dow Allen <gmail@jamesdowallen.nospam> - 2015-04-29 04:07 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 07:48 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-25 03:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-26 09:33 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-26 07:37 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-25 04:01 -0700
Page 21 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 19 20 [21] 22 Next page →
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-17 07:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87oalj9rsr.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #62154 |
Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 17/05/2015 11:36, Richard Bos wrote:
>> Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I agree it would cause problems if people were to write: c>='A' &&
>>> c<='Z', but that's another matter. That would break under EBCDIC but
>>> that's what warnings are for.
>>
>> Indeed, and it would be _more_ difficult to write an acceptable
>> exception for conditional expressions than it would be to write one for
>> an extended case.
>> Which means that your argument that the existence of EBCDIC is the
>> crucial thing that means we don't have an extended case in C is
>> foundered by your own argument.
>
> Not at all. C allows c>='A' && c<'Z' even though what is probably
> intended would only work with ASCII and not EBCDIC.
>
> But it doesn't allow case 'A'..'Z' even though exactly the same is true.
>
> Part of the reason it doesn't allow is because of this problem (it's
> also easier to isolate the ".." or whatever construction is used to
> signify a set of consecutive values.
Certainly C doesn't support case ranges (gcc supports them as an
extension, but using "...", since that token already exists in the
language). But I'm not convinced EBCDIC is the reason for that.
The lack of case ranges isn't an arbitrary distinction, it's just a
feature that doesn't exist in the language. That may be a subtle
distinction, but it's significant.
C's switch statement is a very low-level construct, essentially a
computed goto (see also Duff's Device). BCPL and B both had switch
statements very similar to C's, and neither supported ranges. I doubt
that the design of BCPL was influenced by concern about EBCDIC.
> Most of us don't care that our code might not run on EBCDISC. And
> those that did, can continue writing out all the values individually.
>
> (BTW would you have any objection to being able to write case
> A','B','C': or does it absolutely have to be case ''A': case 'B': case
> C': ?
It depends on what you mean by "objection". Certainly it's not
valid in current C. It could be added without breaking anything;
the current syntax is
case constant-expression :
and constant expression cannot include a comma operator. I wouldn't
object to adding it to the language, but even if it appeared in, say,
C2020, I wouldn't be able to take advantage of it in code that needs
to be compiled by pre-C2020 compilers. I doubt that it would be
added, since I've seen no demand for it other than your suggestion,
and it adds no real expressive power. If someone designing a new
language wants to support a more terse syntax for multiple cases,
that's great; some languages already do.
I wouldn't advise someone designing a new language to use C-style switch
statements in the first place, unless C compatibility is an important
requirement.
> What about case "ABC": where the characters of the string are
> separated out into 'A', 'B', 'C'?)
My only objection to that is that I find it a bit ugly. It would
assign a new and very different meaning to string literals.
There's nothing inconsistent about it, but it could cause some
confusion; I've seen code by new programmers trying to use switch
statements on strings. It adds no real expressive power, and IMHO
it's not worth the cost.
--
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 | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-17 16:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mjab6k$ggp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62163 |
On 17/05/2015 15:56, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> What about case "ABC": where the characters of the string are
>> separated out into 'A', 'B', 'C'?)
>
> My only objection to that is that I find it a bit ugly. It would
> assign a new and very different meaning to string literals.
> There's nothing inconsistent about it, but it could cause some
> confusion; I've seen code by new programmers trying to use switch
> statements on strings. It adds no real expressive power, and IMHO
> it's not worth the cost.
Yet there is a precedent for it in C:
char str[] = "ABC";
instead of having to write:
char str[] = {'A','B','C',0};
(although there is the ambiguity of that final 0 which isn't needed when
used in a switch case.)
The expressive power is in being able to match an arbitrary set of
characters more easily, where even the range doesn't help. And it's
easier also to define that string elsewhere, and use it in several
places including the switch, as well as being able print it or pass it
to functions.
Something that exists only as case 'X': case 'P': case '.' is less flexible.
Anyway that was just something I thought of while writing that post.
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-17 12:57 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <878ucn9dtp.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #62167 |
Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 17/05/2015 15:56, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
>>> What about case "ABC": where the characters of the string are
>>> separated out into 'A', 'B', 'C'?)
>>
>> My only objection to that is that I find it a bit ugly. It would
>> assign a new and very different meaning to string literals.
>> There's nothing inconsistent about it, but it could cause some
>> confusion; I've seen code by new programmers trying to use switch
>> statements on strings. It adds no real expressive power, and IMHO
>> it's not worth the cost.
>
> Yet there is a precedent for it in C:
>
> char str[] = "ABC";
>
> instead of having to write:
>
> char str[] = {'A','B','C',0};
No, that's nothing more than the usual meaning of a string literal.
(It's one of the three cases where an expression of array type isn't
implicitly converted to a pointer.)
> (although there is the ambiguity of that final 0 which isn't needed
> when used in a switch case.)
>
> The expressive power is in being able to match an arbitrary set of
> characters more easily, where even the range doesn't help. And it's
> easier also to define that string elsewhere, and use it in several
> places including the switch, as well as being able print it or pass it
> to functions.
>
> Something that exists only as case 'X': case 'P': case '.' is less
> flexible.
When I said it adds no expressive power, I meant that there's
nothing you can express using the proposed construct that can't be
straightforwardly expressed (though more verbosely) using existing
constructs.
As for defining it elsewhere, you could always write:
#define CASE_UPPER \
case 'A': case 'B': case 'C': \
... \
case 'Z'
> Anyway that was just something I thought of while writing that post.
If you're going to make switch statements more flexible, you'd have
to reach a consensus on just how far to take it. Should non-constant
expressions be permitted? String comparisons? Floating-point?
Should there be a special syntax that matches uppercase letters
regardless of the character set?
--
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 | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-17 15:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mjad4q$psj$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #62163 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: (snip) >> Not at all. C allows c>='A' && c<'Z' even though what is probably >> intended would only work with ASCII and not EBCDIC. >> But it doesn't allow case 'A'..'Z' even though exactly the same is true. >> Part of the reason it doesn't allow is because of this problem (it's >> also easier to isolate the ".." or whatever construction is used to >> signify a set of consecutive values. > Certainly C doesn't support case ranges (gcc supports them as an > extension, but using "...", since that token already exists in the > language). But I'm not convinced EBCDIC is the reason for that. I am not at all convinced, either, though have no direct evidence either way. > The lack of case ranges isn't an arbitrary distinction, it's just a > feature that doesn't exist in the language. That may be a subtle > distinction, but it's significant. > C's switch statement is a very low-level construct, essentially a > computed goto (see also Duff's Device). BCPL and B both had switch > statements very similar to C's, and neither supported ranges. I doubt > that the design of BCPL was influenced by concern about EBCDIC. Having learned Fortran long before C, I was surprised after some years to find out when it isn't. If you put a case 1000000000: you find the difference. (snip) > It depends on what you mean by "objection". Certainly it's not > valid in current C. It could be added without breaking anything; > the current syntax is > case constant-expression : > and constant expression cannot include a comma operator. I wouldn't > object to adding it to the language, but even if it appeared in, say, > C2020, I wouldn't be able to take advantage of it in code that needs > to be compiled by pre-C2020 compilers. If a new switch/case is added to C, I would suggest one like the verilog case statement. In verilog, the cases aren't required to be constant, and the first one that matches is taken. (And no fall through, either.) (Though most verilog code with case does use constants.) > I doubt that it would be > added, since I've seen no demand for it other than your suggestion, > and it adds no real expressive power. If someone designing a new > language wants to support a more terse syntax for multiple cases, > that's great; some languages already do. -- glen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-18 11:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <555A00D2.8060708@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #62169 |
On 05/17/2015 11:46 AM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote: > Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: ... >> C's switch statement is a very low-level construct, essentially a >> computed goto (see also Duff's Device). BCPL and B both had switch >> statements very similar to C's, and neither supported ranges. I doubt >> that the design of BCPL was influenced by concern about EBCDIC. > > Having learned Fortran long before C, I was surprised after some > years to find out when it isn't. If you put a > > case 1000000000: > > you find the difference. It could very easily be due to a lack of sleep on my part, but I had trouble understanding that comment. If you were to expand the phrase "when it isn't" to "when A is not B", what would "A" be, and what would "B" be? What is the difference you found with the following line? case 1000000000: That line causes the value 1000000000 to be converted to the promoted type of the controlling switch expression. If that's a type which isn't capable of representing that value, the results can be unexpected, but a decent compiler should warn you of that problem. In principle, that's equally true of any case label, though a value that large is more likely to trigger such a problem. If that's the issue you're referring to, you should have provided information about the type of the controlling switch expression. Otherwise, that looks to me like a perfectly ordinary case label.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-18 08:56 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87617p6fs1.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #62222 |
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes:
> On 05/17/2015 11:46 AM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
>> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
> ...
>>> C's switch statement is a very low-level construct, essentially a
>>> computed goto (see also Duff's Device). BCPL and B both had switch
>>> statements very similar to C's, and neither supported ranges. I doubt
>>> that the design of BCPL was influenced by concern about EBCDIC.
>>
>> Having learned Fortran long before C, I was surprised after some
>> years to find out when it isn't. If you put a
>>
>> case 1000000000:
>>
>> you find the difference.
>
> It could very easily be due to a lack of sleep on my part, but I had
> trouble understanding that comment. If you were to expand the phrase
> "when it isn't" to "when A is not B", what would "A" be, and what would
> "B" be?
>
> What is the difference you found with the following line?
>
> case 1000000000:
>
> That line causes the value 1000000000 to be converted to the promoted
> type of the controlling switch expression. If that's a type which isn't
> capable of representing that value, the results can be unexpected, but a
> decent compiler should warn you of that problem. In principle, that's
> equally true of any case label, though a value that large is more likely
> to trigger such a problem. If that's the issue you're referring to, you
> should have provided information about the type of the controlling
> switch expression. Otherwise, that looks to me like a perfectly ordinary
> case label.
A sufficiently naive compiler, given
case 1000000000:
might (try to) generate a jump table with a billion entries.
(I've seen exactly that problem for the equivalent construct with
a Pascal compiler, though things started blowing up around 10,000.)
I haven't checked, but I'm skeptical that any "sufficiently naive"
compilers in thise sense are currently in production.
--
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 | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-18 18:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mjd9rt$gvj$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #62224 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> writes: (snip, I wrote) >>> Having learned Fortran long before C, I was surprised after some >>> years to find out when it isn't. If you put a >>> case 1000000000: (snip) >> What is the difference you found with the following line? >> case 1000000000: (snip) > A sufficiently naive compiler, given > case 1000000000: > might (try to) generate a jump table with a billion entries. > (I've seen exactly that problem for the equivalent construct with > a Pascal compiler, though things started blowing up around 10,000.) > I haven't checked, but I'm skeptical that any "sufficiently naive" > compilers in thise sense are currently in production. It was some years ago when I first tried that. But then again, compilers stay in use long after they are out of production. I was decoding the high bits of a 32 bit word, such as: case 0x10000000: ... case 0x20000000: ... case 0x30000000: ... case 0x40000000: ... My first use of switch/case was a translation of a Pascal program... -- glen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-18 18:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mjd9gn$fu1$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #62222 |
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:
(snip, I wrote)
>> Having learned Fortran long before C, I was surprised after some
>> years to find out when it isn't. If you put a
>> case 1000000000:
>> you find the difference.
> It could very easily be due to a lack of sleep on my part, but I had
> trouble understanding that comment. If you were to expand the phrase
> "when it isn't" to "when A is not B", what would "A" be, and what would
> "B" be?
> What is the difference you found with the following line?
> case 1000000000:
Yes, I didn't make it very clear at all. Consider:
switch(i) {
case 1: s="one"; break;
case 1000000: s="million"; break;
case 1000000000: s="billion"; break;
}
I do hope the compiler doesn't generate a 1000000001 entry branch table.
If all the cases are close together:
switch(i) {
case 999999999: s="lots of nines"; break;
case 1000000000: s="billion"; break;
case 1000000001: s="billion and one"; break;
case 1000000002: s="billion and two"; break;
}
The compiler might subtract 999999999 and then use a small branch
table on the difference.
(snip)
-- glen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-18 14:41 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <555A323C.1000903@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #62231 |
On 05/18/2015 02:03 PM, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
> James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> (snip, I wrote)
>>> Having learned Fortran long before C, I was surprised after some
>>> years to find out when it isn't. If you put a
>
>>> case 1000000000:
>
>>> you find the difference.
>
>> It could very easily be due to a lack of sleep on my part, but I had
>> trouble understanding that comment. If you were to expand the phrase
>> "when it isn't" to "when A is not B", what would "A" be, and what would
>> "B" be?
You didn't answer that bit, so I'm still confused about it.
>> What is the difference you found with the following line?
>
>> case 1000000000:
>
> Yes, I didn't make it very clear at all. Consider:
>
> switch(i) {
> case 1: s="one"; break;
> case 1000000: s="million"; break;
> case 1000000000: s="billion"; break;
> }
>
> I do hope the compiler doesn't generate a 1000000001 entry branch table.
That's purely a quality of implementation issue (QoI), and I would
expect any decent compiler to generate a branch table only if doing so
was superior to the alternatives. Given that the equivalent of the
following code is also a valid alternative:
if(i == 1)
s = "one";
else if(i == 1000000)
s = "million";
else if(i == 1000000000)
s = "billion";
It's hard to imagine a compiler validly concluding that such a huge
branch table is a superior approach.
Unless, of course, the required memory is cheaper (in all relevant
senses of the word) than the average CPU time needed to evaluate the
if()s, in which case, what's wrong with using a billion-entry branch table?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-17 15:39 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mjau7l$ott$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #62163 |
On 17-May-15 09:56, Keith Thompson wrote: > I've seen code by new programmers trying to use switch statements on > strings. It adds no real expressive power, and IMHO it's not worth > the cost. If I were going to muck with how switch statements work, that's probably the first place I'd look. I've seen a _lot_ of code that would be much clearer if it could simply switch on a string value. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-17 13:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87zj529b0o.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #62200 |
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes:
> On 17-May-15 09:56, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> I've seen code by new programmers trying to use switch statements on
>> strings. It adds no real expressive power, and IMHO it's not worth
>> the cost.
>
> If I were going to muck with how switch statements work, that's probably
> the first place I'd look. I've seen a _lot_ of code that would be much
> clearer if it could simply switch on a string value.
Sure, I've seen code that could sensibly be implemented using a switch
on a string value, equivalent to:
if (strcmp(s, "this") == 0) {
/* ... */
}
else if (strcmp(s, "that") == 0) {
/* ... */
}
...
But very often the required test for each case isn't just a string
equality comparison. Frequently you really need a case-insensitive
comparison, or a substring comparison, or even a regular expression
test.
--
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 | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-13 19:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87zj57dhsi.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #61954 |
Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 13/05/2015 20:40, glen herrmannsfeldt wrote:
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> (snip)
>>> That's fine - I am not suggesting that C compilers drop support for
>>> these systems. I am just wondering if such systems need support from
>>> newer C standards - and if it would be practical to say that if a
>>> program is written to C15 (or whatever), then it the character set must
>>> be 8-bit, and the first 128 characters must be ASCII. This doesn't
>>> change C for EBCDIC computers - it merely hinders them from running C15
>>> programs. But it would make life a little easier for everyone who
>>> /doesn't/ write code to run on those systems - as well as making the
>>> standard itself a little shorter and clearer.
>>
>> IBM will probably disagree. I believe they have good C support
>> for z/OS.
>
> They can keep EBCDIC if they want, but why inflict it on everyone
> else? Especially as it was such a crazy character mapping.
>
> People can spend lifetimes programming and not come across EBCDIC, yet
> they are denied language features such as: case 'A'..'F', and EBCDIC
> is usually quoted as one of the reasons.
The characters 'A'..'F' and 'a'..'f' are contiguous even in EBCDIC. A
future standard could guarantee that without breaking any systems that
use ASCII-based or EBCDIC-based character sets.
I just don't see all that many cases where case ranges would be useful.
Maybe you see more than I do.
If you want more than that, say 'A'..'Z' to test for uppercase letters,
that might seem reasonable -- but there are potentially lot more than 26
uppercase letters.
[...]
--
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 | Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-14 09:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnml8s76.5of.nw@granicus.if.org> |
| In reply to | #61965 |
On 2015-05-14, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > The characters 'A'..'F' and 'a'..'f' are contiguous even in EBCDIC. A > future standard could guarantee that without breaking any systems that > use ASCII-based or EBCDIC-based character sets. > > I just don't see all that many cases where case ranges would be useful. > Maybe you see more than I do. > > If you want more than that, say 'A'..'Z' to test for uppercase letters, > that might seem reasonable -- but there are potentially lot more than 26 > uppercase letters. ISTM that this is what isupper() is for. Furthermore, it's not wildly difficult to gin up a function or macro to do any more complex test you may have. I think it would be better in general to lobby for more of these sort of tests to be added to the standard, rather than making some radical change to the base system requirements. For example, when was isxdigit() added? If there are lots more that are really generally useful, by all means, let's add them to the standard. Granted, this breaks a nice switch construct, but I would just do the isupper() (or whatever) test first, and then put a switch for the special cases in an else block. -- nw
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-14 08:57 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mj29he$5bt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #61979 |
On 14-May-15 04:54, Nathan Wagner wrote: > On 2015-05-14, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: >> If you want more than that, say 'A'..'Z' to test for uppercase >> letters, that might seem reasonable -- but there are potentially >> lot more than 26 uppercase letters. > > ISTM that this is what isupper() is for. Furthermore, it's not > wildly difficult to gin up a function or macro to do any more complex > test you may have. Unfortunately, those functions only handle single-byte characters. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-14 08:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87vbfvch0k.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #61997 |
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes:
> On 14-May-15 04:54, Nathan Wagner wrote:
>> On 2015-05-14, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>>> If you want more than that, say 'A'..'Z' to test for uppercase
>>> letters, that might seem reasonable -- but there are potentially
>>> lot more than 26 uppercase letters.
>>
>> ISTM that this is what isupper() is for. Furthermore, it's not
>> wildly difficult to gin up a function or macro to do any more complex
>> test you may have.
>
> Unfortunately, those functions only handle single-byte characters.
<uchar.h> declares iswupper() et al. It was added by C11.
--
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 | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-14 08:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <87r3qjcgyb.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #61979 |
Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> writes:
[...]
> For example, when was isxdigit() added? If there are lots more that are
> really generally useful, by all means, let's add them to the standard.
[...]
isxdigit() is in C90.
--
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 | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-14 14:37 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <crig3vFnbhrU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #61935 |
Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 13/05/15 13:55, David Brown wrote: >> On 13/05/15 12:55, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 13/05/15 08:14, David Brown wrote: >>> >>>> Isn't EBCDIC only used in really old systems? >>> >>> Spoken like a true PC junkie. :-) >> >> Well, PC downwards. I don't do mainframes, minis, etc. >> >>> >>> Which reminds me: isn't ASCII only used in really tiny systems? >>> >> >> The point of ASCII is that apart from EBCDIC, everyone agrees on the >> first 128 characters. > > So are you claiming that a 7-bit code that has been standardised is a > 7-bit code that has been standardised? Outrageous! :-) > > The point of EBCDIC is that, like it or not, big iron runs it, *almost* > without exception, so we're kinda stuck with it for now (although there > are signs that IBM is slowly edging towards ASCII). Well that depends on where you get your big iron... Everything "big" I've used this century runs Linux, Solaris or <insert vendors name here> Unix. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-14 13:13 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mj1vus$vrt$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #61967 |
On 14/05/15 04:37, Ian Collins wrote: > Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 13/05/15 13:55, David Brown wrote: >>> On 13/05/15 12:55, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> On 13/05/15 08:14, David Brown wrote: >>>> >>>>> Isn't EBCDIC only used in really old systems? >>>> >>>> Spoken like a true PC junkie. :-) >>> >>> Well, PC downwards. I don't do mainframes, minis, etc. >>> >>>> >>>> Which reminds me: isn't ASCII only used in really tiny systems? >>>> >>> >>> The point of ASCII is that apart from EBCDIC, everyone agrees on the >>> first 128 characters. >> >> So are you claiming that a 7-bit code that has been standardised is a >> 7-bit code that has been standardised? Outrageous! :-) >> >> The point of EBCDIC is that, like it or not, big iron runs it, *almost* >> without exception, so we're kinda stuck with it for now (although there >> are signs that IBM is slowly edging towards ASCII). > > Well that depends on where you get your big iron... Everything "big" > I've used this century runs Linux, Solaris or <insert vendors name here> > Unix. > And I think many of the really "big iron" systems that IBM sells these days are used to run vast numbers of Linux virtual machines.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-15 16:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <enoclatne9vdcjftnp8tpc0c0maqdpdmnn@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #61990 |
On Thu, 14 May 2015 13:13:35 +0200, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >On 14/05/15 04:37, Ian Collins wrote: >> Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 13/05/15 13:55, David Brown wrote: >>>> On 13/05/15 12:55, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>> On 13/05/15 08:14, David Brown wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Isn't EBCDIC only used in really old systems? >>>>> >>>>> Spoken like a true PC junkie. :-) >>>> >>>> Well, PC downwards. I don't do mainframes, minis, etc. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Which reminds me: isn't ASCII only used in really tiny systems? >>>>> >>>> >>>> The point of ASCII is that apart from EBCDIC, everyone agrees on the >>>> first 128 characters. >>> >>> So are you claiming that a 7-bit code that has been standardised is a >>> 7-bit code that has been standardised? Outrageous! :-) >>> >>> The point of EBCDIC is that, like it or not, big iron runs it, *almost* >>> without exception, so we're kinda stuck with it for now (although there >>> are signs that IBM is slowly edging towards ASCII). >> >> Well that depends on where you get your big iron... Everything "big" >> I've used this century runs Linux, Solaris or <insert vendors name here> >> Unix. >> > >And I think many of the really "big iron" systems that IBM sells these >days are used to run vast numbers of Linux virtual machines. Well a few of them are, anyway. Having a few Linux images on a mainframe is quite common, but the actual wholesale replacement of "squatty box" server farms appears quite rare. Virtualizing a bunch of low-utilization servers onto a single physical box certainly has merit, but a mainframe doesn't really bring all that much that you can't do with VMWare (and the like).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-13 18:44 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <r7o7la5c90ruofm2qjs6qtv8v427gkq5ag@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #61934 |
On Wed, 13 May 2015 14:55:27 +0200, David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >On 13/05/15 12:55, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 13/05/15 08:14, David Brown wrote: >> >>> Isn't EBCDIC only used in really old systems? >> >> Spoken like a true PC junkie. :-) > >Well, PC downwards. I don't do mainframes, minis, etc. > >> >> Which reminds me: isn't ASCII only used in really tiny systems? >> > >The point of ASCII is that apart from EBCDIC, everyone agrees on the >first 128 characters. And those first 128 characters are sufficient for >a large proportion of programs. We won't get everyone to agree about >anything beyond that, so there is no point in trying. Well, we don't really agree on the first 128 characters so much either. More these days, but things like $ and # in pre-ANSI ASCII varied between languages considerably. And we only semi-agree on a few of the control characters.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 21 of 22 — ← Prev page 1 … 19 20 [21] 22 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web