Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #100113 > unrolled thread
| Started by | einstein1410@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-12-23 22:47 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-12-24 09:15 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 87 — 11 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Getting tired by including header files einstein1410@gmail.com - 2016-12-23 22:47 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files einstein1410@gmail.com - 2016-12-23 22:52 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-24 21:03 +1300
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 03:39 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-25 09:37 +1300
Re: Getting tired by including header files Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-24 14:17 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 17:27 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 17:28 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-24 17:32 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 17:37 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 17:39 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-24 18:57 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 19:34 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-25 04:08 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-25 04:26 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-25 04:36 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-12-25 04:50 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-25 05:01 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-25 07:05 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-25 05:02 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-25 07:06 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-25 06:36 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-25 06:34 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-25 06:50 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-25 07:01 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-25 07:18 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-25 07:27 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-25 07:44 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-25 07:49 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-25 08:01 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-25 08:08 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 17:18 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 04:14 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-24 12:18 +0000
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 04:32 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 04:41 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-24 13:46 +0000
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 07:07 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-24 15:29 +0000
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 07:46 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 07:58 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 08:26 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 08:28 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 08:46 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 09:00 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 09:06 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 09:12 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 09:20 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 09:46 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 09:51 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 09:57 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 10:01 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 10:43 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-24 09:52 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 09:57 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 10:20 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) - 2016-12-24 18:43 +0000
Re: Getting tired by including header files fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 11:01 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 11:09 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 11:44 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 12:13 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 17:12 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-25 04:52 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-25 06:47 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-25 07:02 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-25 07:19 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 17:15 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-25 05:24 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-25 06:55 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-25 07:56 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-25 08:00 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-12-25 08:04 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-25 08:11 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-26 07:28 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 11:10 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 11:03 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files janibhargavk@gmail.com - 2016-12-24 07:31 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 07:51 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Manfred <mx2927@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 16:49 +0100
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 08:02 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Manfred <mx2927@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 17:24 +0100
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 08:33 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 04:49 -0800
Getting tired by including header files asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-12-24 08:32 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 08:39 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-12-24 09:04 -0800
Re: Getting tired by including header files Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 09:15 -0800
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-24 07:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ab5021ed-8f55-4366-940f-72dff096c454@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #100145 |
W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 16:29:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Richard Heathfield napisał: > On 24/12/16 15:07, Krunalkumar Shah wrote: > > I don't care what people thinks. > > Righty-ho. In that case, I don't care what you think, either. > > *PLONK* > sorry for heathfield, he is well known (hard to say a word here - halfredneck? wretch?) here [same like some of his weird colegues: will attack you if you dont care for their ultrastupid belifs] as to topic is hard to answer becouse of one reason (it was already talked, and repeating it specially for you is timewaste: headers are burdensome thats why they should be get rid (that means than type info should be contained in binaries (note that it is easier to get rid of "export headers" (export declarations) than "import headers" (import declarations) - when you call imported /**/foo(/**/) you would need 1) make compilation of given part dependant on binary of binaries attached in commandline (this is maybe not so scary as you consider instead of include "stdio.h" you could use "link stdio;" or something like that, but is some violation of present 'separation' ) 2) you could provide type info in each call of foo, like (char*) foo( (int) a, (int) b, (char*) c ); this maybe is a bit burdensome, more if you gave plenty of cals 3) you could vrite this declaration in a file close as you do now It is IMO worth it though, and i think headers could be getting rid (or maybe goin optional see point 3) for a few years before now
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-24 08:26 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0074e8fc-ba1b-428f-b835-7d7b1a20f21c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #100151 |
W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 16:58:37 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał: > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 16:29:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Richard Heathfield napisał: > > On 24/12/16 15:07, Krunalkumar Shah wrote: > > > I don't care what people thinks. > > > > Righty-ho. In that case, I don't care what you think, either. > > > > *PLONK* > > > sorry for heathfield, he is well known (hard to say a word here - halfredneck? wretch?) here [same like some of his weird colegues: will attack you if you dont care for their ultrastupid belifs] > > as to topic is hard to answer becouse of one reason (it was > already talked, and repeating it specially for you is timewaste: headers are burdensome thats why they should be > get rid (that means than type info should be contained in > binaries > > (note that it is easier to get rid of "export headers" (export declarations) than "import headers" (import declarations) - when you call imported /**/foo(/**/) you would need > > 1) make compilation of given part dependant on binary of binaries attached in commandline (this is maybe not so scary as you consider instead of include "stdio.h" you could use "link stdio;" or something like that, but is some violation of present 'separation' ) > 2) you could provide type info in each call of foo, > like (char*) foo( (int) a, (int) b, (char*) c ); > this maybe is a bit burdensome, more if you gave plenty of cals > 3) you could vrite this declaration in a file close as you do now > > It is IMO worth it though, and i think headers could be getting rid (or maybe goin optional see point 3) for a few years before now yet worth noting that amount of work with headers is proportional to the numbers of modules you use (by headers and modules i mean here mostly you own ones) so to decrase amount of such work one can consider some scenerios 1) write all in one big module 2) use two modules only (appliciation / library) 3) use some more modules (like 3-6) where you divide like graphics, audio... and so on 4) use very large amount of modules (like each code file = separate .obj module) i used all of those (wasted a lot of time on this becouse if i finalle get unsatisfied i needed to rewrite whole framework) if some want guess which one seems now the best to me ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-24 08:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <42f93ceb-275d-4388-bb46-19dc91b93cc5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #100151 |
On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 9:28:37 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote: > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 16:29:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Richard Heathfield napisał: > > On 24/12/16 15:07, Krunalkumar Shah wrote: > > > I don't care what people thinks. > > > > Righty-ho. In that case, I don't care what you think, either. > > > > *PLONK* > > > sorry for heathfield, he is well known (hard to say a word here - halfredneck? wretch?) here [same like some of his weird colegues: will attack you if you dont care for their ultrastupid belifs] > > as to topic is hard to answer becouse of one reason (it was > already talked, and repeating it specially for you is timewaste: headers are burdensome thats why they should be > get rid (that means than type info should be contained in > binaries > > (note that it is easier to get rid of "export headers" (export declarations) than "import headers" (import declarations) - when you call imported /**/foo(/**/) you would need > > 1) make compilation of given part dependant on binary of binaries attached in commandline (this is maybe not so scary as you consider instead of include "stdio.h" you could use "link stdio;" or something like that, but is some violation of present 'separation' ) > 2) you could provide type info in each call of foo, > like (char*) foo( (int) a, (int) b, (char*) c ); > this maybe is a bit burdensome, more if you gave plenty of cals > 3) you could vrite this declaration in a file close as you do now > > It is IMO worth it though, and i think headers could be getting rid (or maybe goin optional see point 3) for a few years before now Who are you fir? I am confused by your name. And why you are apologizing in place of heathfield? are you his relative, or strongly supporter of him.? He is having no qualities of being well known. And has no rights to write " Any suggestion are welcomed and please feel free to ask me anything" and other thing. I can fire a case against him, if This group is not for public. but here it is public group any one can put anything. whatever leave him. but from now it is lesson for all authers who are reading this, that writing any suggestion welcomed etc etc are easy but to follow it is truely hard. and someone has to aplogize, which is most wrost. I think he should apologize here, but what we can, we are common person and he is well known. And thanks fir for answering. As you told me that you are repeating the same topic about which the discussion was already done, but think about History is to be repeated, and if not I repeat then someone else surly will. Thanks a lot. Nice to talk with you. and you don't need to apologize, its ok. Krunalkumar Shah
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-24 08:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <21071a09-c027-4a23-8b68-9102a73ce0dc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #100159 |
W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 17:28:44 UTC+1 użytkownik Krunalkumar Shah napisał: > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 9:28:37 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote: > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 16:29:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Richard Heathfield napisał: > > > On 24/12/16 15:07, Krunalkumar Shah wrote: > > > > I don't care what people thinks. > > > > > > Righty-ho. In that case, I don't care what you think, either. > > > > > > *PLONK* > > > > > sorry for heathfield, he is well known (hard to say a word here - halfredneck? wretch?) here [same like some of his weird colegues: will attack you if you dont care for their ultrastupid belifs] > > > > as to topic is hard to answer becouse of one reason (it was > > already talked, and repeating it specially for you is timewaste: headers are burdensome thats why they should be > > get rid (that means than type info should be contained in > > binaries > > > > (note that it is easier to get rid of "export headers" (export declarations) than "import headers" (import declarations) - when you call imported /**/foo(/**/) you would need > > > > 1) make compilation of given part dependant on binary of binaries attached in commandline (this is maybe not so scary as you consider instead of include "stdio.h" you could use "link stdio;" or something like that, but is some violation of present 'separation' ) > > 2) you could provide type info in each call of foo, > > like (char*) foo( (int) a, (int) b, (char*) c ); > > this maybe is a bit burdensome, more if you gave plenty of cals > > 3) you could vrite this declaration in a file close as you do now > > > > It is IMO worth it though, and i think headers could be getting rid (or maybe goin optional see point 3) for a few years before now > > Who are you fir? I am confused by your name. And why you are apologizing in place of heathfield? are you his relative, or strongly supporter of him.? > I am this group 'representative' and want to say that such users as heathfield of Thompson have no monopoly to make rules (though they try hard) for other users aspecially if they rules are just stupid and cannot be taken [this dont mean nor rules at all - but i just belive in other rules (btw recently im so sick and feel so much phisical pain that i am not quite in a shape, i feel i should improve myself, but thats the other story] > He is having no qualities of being well known. And has no rights to write " Any suggestion are welcomed and please feel free to ask me anything" and other thing. > > I can fire a case against him, if This group is not for public. but here it is public group any one can put anything. > > whatever leave him. > > but from now it is lesson for all authers who are reading this, that writing any suggestion welcomed etc etc are easy but to follow it is truely hard. and someone has to aplogize, which is most wrost. > > I think he should apologize here, but what we can, we are common person and he is well known. > > > And thanks fir for answering. > As you told me that you are repeating the same topic about which the discussion was already done, but think about > > History is to be repeated, and if not I repeat then someone else surly will. > > Thanks a lot. > Nice to talk with you. and you don't need to apologize, its ok. > Krunalkumar Shah
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-24 09:00 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <93c14106-e617-4f20-903a-e8901d84d40d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #100164 |
On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:16:56 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote: > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 17:28:44 UTC+1 użytkownik Krunalkumar Shah napisał: > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 9:28:37 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote: > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 16:29:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Richard Heathfield napisał: > > > > On 24/12/16 15:07, Krunalkumar Shah wrote: > > > > > I don't care what people thinks. > > > > > > > > Righty-ho. In that case, I don't care what you think, either. > > > > > > > > *PLONK* > > > > > > > sorry for heathfield, he is well known (hard to say a word here - halfredneck? wretch?) here [same like some of his weird colegues: will attack you if you dont care for their ultrastupid belifs] > > > > > > as to topic is hard to answer becouse of one reason (it was > > > already talked, and repeating it specially for you is timewaste: headers are burdensome thats why they should be > > > get rid (that means than type info should be contained in > > > binaries > > > > > > (note that it is easier to get rid of "export headers" (export declarations) than "import headers" (import declarations) - when you call imported /**/foo(/**/) you would need > > > > > > 1) make compilation of given part dependant on binary of binaries attached in commandline (this is maybe not so scary as you consider instead of include "stdio.h" you could use "link stdio;" or something like that, but is some violation of present 'separation' ) > > > 2) you could provide type info in each call of foo, > > > like (char*) foo( (int) a, (int) b, (char*) c ); > > > this maybe is a bit burdensome, more if you gave plenty of cals > > > 3) you could vrite this declaration in a file close as you do now > > > > > > It is IMO worth it though, and i think headers could be getting rid (or maybe goin optional see point 3) for a few years before now > > > > Who are you fir? I am confused by your name. And why you are apologizing in place of heathfield? are you his relative, or strongly supporter of him.? > > > > I am this group 'representative' and want to say that such users as heathfield of Thompson have no monopoly to make rules (though they try hard) for other users aspecially if they rules are just stupid and cannot be taken > [this dont mean nor rules at all - but i just belive in other rules (btw recently im so sick and feel so much phisical pain that i am not quite in a shape, i feel i should improve myself, but thats the other story] > > > He is having no qualities of being well known. And has no rights to write " Any suggestion are welcomed and please feel free to ask me anything" and other thing. > > > > I can fire a case against him, if This group is not for public. but here it is public group any one can put anything. > > > > whatever leave him. > > > > but from now it is lesson for all authers who are reading this, that writing any suggestion welcomed etc etc are easy but to follow it is truely hard. and someone has to aplogize, which is most wrost. > > > > I think he should apologize here, but what we can, we are common person and he is well known. > > > > > > And thanks fir for answering. > > As you told me that you are repeating the same topic about which the discussion was already done, but think about > > > > History is to be repeated, and if not I repeat then someone else surly will. > > > > Thanks a lot. > > Nice to talk with you. and you don't need to apologize, its ok. > > Krunalkumar Shah What!!!! You are the representative.... I can't believe. but as you know this group is publicly available, can you please give me any proof that you are the representative? Here anyone can be anything. I can say i am the owner of google and 50% partner, but i cant prove. So please prove that you are the said one. I am requesting you. can you please give me any proof? Thanks in advance with hoping that you surely will. Krunalkumar Shah
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-24 09:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b7f1920a-1a7c-4f56-8ec3-fc44bef72885@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #100166 |
W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 18:00:17 UTC+1 użytkownik Krunalkumar Shah napisał: > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:16:56 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote: > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 17:28:44 UTC+1 użytkownik Krunalkumar Shah napisał: > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 9:28:37 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote: > > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 16:29:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Richard Heathfield napisał: > > > > > On 24/12/16 15:07, Krunalkumar Shah wrote: > > > > > > I don't care what people thinks. > > > > > > > > > > Righty-ho. In that case, I don't care what you think, either. > > > > > > > > > > *PLONK* > > > > > > > > > sorry for heathfield, he is well known (hard to say a word here - halfredneck? wretch?) here [same like some of his weird colegues: will attack you if you dont care for their ultrastupid belifs] > > > > > > > > as to topic is hard to answer becouse of one reason (it was > > > > already talked, and repeating it specially for you is timewaste: headers are burdensome thats why they should be > > > > get rid (that means than type info should be contained in > > > > binaries > > > > > > > > (note that it is easier to get rid of "export headers" (export declarations) than "import headers" (import declarations) - when you call imported /**/foo(/**/) you would need > > > > > > > > 1) make compilation of given part dependant on binary of binaries attached in commandline (this is maybe not so scary as you consider instead of include "stdio.h" you could use "link stdio;" or something like that, but is some violation of present 'separation' ) > > > > 2) you could provide type info in each call of foo, > > > > like (char*) foo( (int) a, (int) b, (char*) c ); > > > > this maybe is a bit burdensome, more if you gave plenty of cals > > > > 3) you could vrite this declaration in a file close as you do now > > > > > > > > It is IMO worth it though, and i think headers could be getting rid (or maybe goin optional see point 3) for a few years before now > > > > > > Who are you fir? I am confused by your name. And why you are apologizing in place of heathfield? are you his relative, or strongly supporter of him.? > > > > > > > I am this group 'representative' and want to say that such users as heathfield of Thompson have no monopoly to make rules (though they try hard) for other users aspecially if they rules are just stupid and cannot be taken > > [this dont mean nor rules at all - but i just belive in other rules (btw recently im so sick and feel so much phisical pain that i am not quite in a shape, i feel i should improve myself, but thats the other story] > > > > > He is having no qualities of being well known. And has no rights to write " Any suggestion are welcomed and please feel free to ask me anything" and other thing. > > > > > > I can fire a case against him, if This group is not for public. but here it is public group any one can put anything. > > > > > > whatever leave him. > > > > > > but from now it is lesson for all authers who are reading this, that writing any suggestion welcomed etc etc are easy but to follow it is truely hard. and someone has to aplogize, which is most wrost. > > > > > > I think he should apologize here, but what we can, we are common person and he is well known. > > > > > > > > > And thanks fir for answering. > > > As you told me that you are repeating the same topic about which the discussion was already done, but think about > > > > > > History is to be repeated, and if not I repeat then someone else surly will. > > > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > Nice to talk with you. and you don't need to apologize, its ok. > > > Krunalkumar Shah > > > What!!!! > You are the representative.... I can't believe. > > but as you know this group is publicly available, can you please give me any proof that you are the representative? > Here anyone can be anything. > I can say i am the owner of google and 50% partner, but i cant prove. > So please prove that you are the said one. > I am requesting you. can you please give me any proof? > > Thanks in advance with hoping that you surely will. > Krunalkumar Shah now you sound stupid (and this is bad becouse it would be better to hold some decent level of intelligence not dwell in total timewaste and meaningless flowmaking) Im representative coz i was writing and reading here long enough to be considered as a active user and representative
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-24 09:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <93e60775-be7f-4ce5-b5b5-696e16fe69f7@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #100168 |
On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:36:17 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote: > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 18:00:17 UTC+1 użytkownik Krunalkumar Shah napisał: > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:16:56 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote: > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 17:28:44 UTC+1 użytkownik Krunalkumar Shah napisał: > > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 9:28:37 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote: > > > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 16:29:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Richard Heathfield napisał: > > > > > > On 24/12/16 15:07, Krunalkumar Shah wrote: > > > > > > > I don't care what people thinks. > > > > > > > > > > > > Righty-ho. In that case, I don't care what you think, either. > > > > > > > > > > > > *PLONK* > > > > > > > > > > > sorry for heathfield, he is well known (hard to say a word here - halfredneck? wretch?) here [same like some of his weird colegues: will attack you if you dont care for their ultrastupid belifs] > > > > > > > > > > as to topic is hard to answer becouse of one reason (it was > > > > > already talked, and repeating it specially for you is timewaste: headers are burdensome thats why they should be > > > > > get rid (that means than type info should be contained in > > > > > binaries > > > > > > > > > > (note that it is easier to get rid of "export headers" (export declarations) than "import headers" (import declarations) - when you call imported /**/foo(/**/) you would need > > > > > > > > > > 1) make compilation of given part dependant on binary of binaries attached in commandline (this is maybe not so scary as you consider instead of include "stdio.h" you could use "link stdio;" or something like that, but is some violation of present 'separation' ) > > > > > 2) you could provide type info in each call of foo, > > > > > like (char*) foo( (int) a, (int) b, (char*) c ); > > > > > this maybe is a bit burdensome, more if you gave plenty of cals > > > > > 3) you could vrite this declaration in a file close as you do now > > > > > > > > > > It is IMO worth it though, and i think headers could be getting rid (or maybe goin optional see point 3) for a few years before now > > > > > > > > Who are you fir? I am confused by your name. And why you are apologizing in place of heathfield? are you his relative, or strongly supporter of him.? > > > > > > > > > > I am this group 'representative' and want to say that such users as heathfield of Thompson have no monopoly to make rules (though they try hard) for other users aspecially if they rules are just stupid and cannot be taken > > > [this dont mean nor rules at all - but i just belive in other rules (btw recently im so sick and feel so much phisical pain that i am not quite in a shape, i feel i should improve myself, but thats the other story] > > > > > > > He is having no qualities of being well known. And has no rights to write " Any suggestion are welcomed and please feel free to ask me anything" and other thing. > > > > > > > > I can fire a case against him, if This group is not for public. but here it is public group any one can put anything. > > > > > > > > whatever leave him. > > > > > > > > but from now it is lesson for all authers who are reading this, that writing any suggestion welcomed etc etc are easy but to follow it is truely hard. and someone has to aplogize, which is most wrost. > > > > > > > > I think he should apologize here, but what we can, we are common person and he is well known. > > > > > > > > > > > > And thanks fir for answering. > > > > As you told me that you are repeating the same topic about which the discussion was already done, but think about > > > > > > > > History is to be repeated, and if not I repeat then someone else surly will. > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > > Nice to talk with you. and you don't need to apologize, its ok. > > > > Krunalkumar Shah > > > > > > What!!!! > > You are the representative.... I can't believe. > > > > but as you know this group is publicly available, can you please give me any proof that you are the representative? > > Here anyone can be anything. > > I can say i am the owner of google and 50% partner, but i cant prove. > > So please prove that you are the said one. > > I am requesting you. can you please give me any proof? > > > > Thanks in advance with hoping that you surely will. > > Krunalkumar Shah > > now you sound stupid (and this is bad becouse it would be better to hold some decent level of intelligence not dwell > in total timewaste and meaningless flowmaking) > > Im representative coz i was writing and reading here long enough to be considered as a active user and representative Yaaa... Thats right.... Sorry for doing stupidity. but sometimes it is good to be stupid logically not like heathfield. And This is logical thing, nothing like stupid in it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-24 09:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <aa630e17-1cbd-4d63-acf8-fd01ac463849@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #100169 |
On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:42:50 PM UTC+5:30, Krunalkumar Shah wrote: > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:36:17 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote: > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 18:00:17 UTC+1 użytkownik Krunalkumar Shah napisał: > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:16:56 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote: > > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 17:28:44 UTC+1 użytkownik Krunalkumar Shah napisał: > > > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 9:28:37 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote: > > > > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 16:29:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Richard Heathfield napisał: > > > > > > > On 24/12/16 15:07, Krunalkumar Shah wrote: > > > > > > > > I don't care what people thinks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Righty-ho. In that case, I don't care what you think, either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *PLONK* > > > > > > > > > > > > > sorry for heathfield, he is well known (hard to say a word here - halfredneck? wretch?) here [same like some of his weird colegues: will attack you if you dont care for their ultrastupid belifs] > > > > > > > > > > > > as to topic is hard to answer becouse of one reason (it was > > > > > > already talked, and repeating it specially for you is timewaste: headers are burdensome thats why they should be > > > > > > get rid (that means than type info should be contained in > > > > > > binaries > > > > > > > > > > > > (note that it is easier to get rid of "export headers" (export declarations) than "import headers" (import declarations) - when you call imported /**/foo(/**/) you would need > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) make compilation of given part dependant on binary of binaries attached in commandline (this is maybe not so scary as you consider instead of include "stdio.h" you could use "link stdio;" or something like that, but is some violation of present 'separation' ) > > > > > > 2) you could provide type info in each call of foo, > > > > > > like (char*) foo( (int) a, (int) b, (char*) c ); > > > > > > this maybe is a bit burdensome, more if you gave plenty of cals > > > > > > 3) you could vrite this declaration in a file close as you do now > > > > > > > > > > > > It is IMO worth it though, and i think headers could be getting rid (or maybe goin optional see point 3) for a few years before now > > > > > > > > > > Who are you fir? I am confused by your name. And why you are apologizing in place of heathfield? are you his relative, or strongly supporter of him.? > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am this group 'representative' and want to say that such users as heathfield of Thompson have no monopoly to make rules (though they try hard) for other users aspecially if they rules are just stupid and cannot be taken > > > > [this dont mean nor rules at all - but i just belive in other rules (btw recently im so sick and feel so much phisical pain that i am not quite in a shape, i feel i should improve myself, but thats the other story] > > > > > > > > > He is having no qualities of being well known. And has no rights to write " Any suggestion are welcomed and please feel free to ask me anything" and other thing. > > > > > > > > > > I can fire a case against him, if This group is not for public. but here it is public group any one can put anything. > > > > > > > > > > whatever leave him. > > > > > > > > > > but from now it is lesson for all authers who are reading this, that writing any suggestion welcomed etc etc are easy but to follow it is truely hard. and someone has to aplogize, which is most wrost. > > > > > > > > > > I think he should apologize here, but what we can, we are common person and he is well known. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And thanks fir for answering. > > > > > As you told me that you are repeating the same topic about which the discussion was already done, but think about > > > > > > > > > > History is to be repeated, and if not I repeat then someone else surly will. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > > > Nice to talk with you. and you don't need to apologize, its ok. > > > > > Krunalkumar Shah > > > > > > > > > What!!!! > > > You are the representative.... I can't believe. > > > > > > but as you know this group is publicly available, can you please give me any proof that you are the representative? > > > Here anyone can be anything. > > > I can say i am the owner of google and 50% partner, but i cant prove. > > > So please prove that you are the said one. > > > I am requesting you. can you please give me any proof? > > > > > > Thanks in advance with hoping that you surely will. > > > Krunalkumar Shah > > > > now you sound stupid (and this is bad becouse it would be better to hold some decent level of intelligence not dwell > > in total timewaste and meaningless flowmaking) > > > > Im representative coz i was writing and reading here long enough to be considered as a active user and representative > > Yaaa... > Thats right.... > Sorry for doing stupidity. > but sometimes it is good to be stupid logically not like heathfield. > > And This is logical thing, nothing like stupid in it. I am also writing here and active, then will I be the owner?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-24 09:46 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c7e8c77b-b127-4009-8e63-ab72504d0502@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #100171 |
W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 18:20:54 UTC+1 użytkownik Krunalkumar Shah napisał: > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:42:50 PM UTC+5:30, Krunalkumar Shah wrote: > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:36:17 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote: > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 18:00:17 UTC+1 użytkownik Krunalkumar Shah napisał: > > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:16:56 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote: > > > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 17:28:44 UTC+1 użytkownik Krunalkumar Shah napisał: > > > > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 9:28:37 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote: > > > > > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 16:29:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Richard Heathfield napisał: > > > > > > > > On 24/12/16 15:07, Krunalkumar Shah wrote: > > > > > > > > > I don't care what people thinks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Righty-ho. In that case, I don't care what you think, either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *PLONK* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sorry for heathfield, he is well known (hard to say a word here - halfredneck? wretch?) here [same like some of his weird colegues: will attack you if you dont care for their ultrastupid belifs] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as to topic is hard to answer becouse of one reason (it was > > > > > > > already talked, and repeating it specially for you is timewaste: headers are burdensome thats why they should be > > > > > > > get rid (that means than type info should be contained in > > > > > > > binaries > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (note that it is easier to get rid of "export headers" (export declarations) than "import headers" (import declarations) - when you call imported /**/foo(/**/) you would need > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) make compilation of given part dependant on binary of binaries attached in commandline (this is maybe not so scary as you consider instead of include "stdio.h" you could use "link stdio;" or something like that, but is some violation of present 'separation' ) > > > > > > > 2) you could provide type info in each call of foo, > > > > > > > like (char*) foo( (int) a, (int) b, (char*) c ); > > > > > > > this maybe is a bit burdensome, more if you gave plenty of cals > > > > > > > 3) you could vrite this declaration in a file close as you do now > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is IMO worth it though, and i think headers could be getting rid (or maybe goin optional see point 3) for a few years before now > > > > > > > > > > > > Who are you fir? I am confused by your name. And why you are apologizing in place of heathfield? are you his relative, or strongly supporter of him.? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am this group 'representative' and want to say that such users as heathfield of Thompson have no monopoly to make rules (though they try hard) for other users aspecially if they rules are just stupid and cannot be taken > > > > > [this dont mean nor rules at all - but i just belive in other rules (btw recently im so sick and feel so much phisical pain that i am not quite in a shape, i feel i should improve myself, but thats the other story] > > > > > > > > > > > He is having no qualities of being well known. And has no rights to write " Any suggestion are welcomed and please feel free to ask me anything" and other thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > I can fire a case against him, if This group is not for public. but here it is public group any one can put anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever leave him. > > > > > > > > > > > > but from now it is lesson for all authers who are reading this, that writing any suggestion welcomed etc etc are easy but to follow it is truely hard. and someone has to aplogize, which is most wrost. > > > > > > > > > > > > I think he should apologize here, but what we can, we are common person and he is well known. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And thanks fir for answering. > > > > > > As you told me that you are repeating the same topic about which the discussion was already done, but think about > > > > > > > > > > > > History is to be repeated, and if not I repeat then someone else surly will. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > > > > Nice to talk with you. and you don't need to apologize, its ok. > > > > > > Krunalkumar Shah > > > > > > > > > > > > What!!!! > > > > You are the representative.... I can't believe. > > > > > > > > but as you know this group is publicly available, can you please give me any proof that you are the representative? > > > > Here anyone can be anything. > > > > I can say i am the owner of google and 50% partner, but i cant prove. > > > > So please prove that you are the said one. > > > > I am requesting you. can you please give me any proof? > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance with hoping that you surely will. > > > > Krunalkumar Shah > > > > > > now you sound stupid (and this is bad becouse it would be better to hold some decent level of intelligence not dwell > > > in total timewaste and meaningless flowmaking) > > > > > > Im representative coz i was writing and reading here long enough to be considered as a active user and representative > > > > Yaaa... > > Thats right.... > > Sorry for doing stupidity. > > but sometimes it is good to be stupid logically not like heathfield. > > > > And This is logical thing, nothing like stupid in it. > > I am also writing here and active, then will I be the owner? im not sure if thios group wold be worth buyin (to less interesting content here)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-24 09:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9a5b21b3-f009-4085-a6fd-e27712edbf1e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #100173 |
On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 11:16:22 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote: > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 18:20:54 UTC+1 użytkownik Krunalkumar Shah napisał: > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:42:50 PM UTC+5:30, Krunalkumar Shah wrote: > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:36:17 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote: > > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 18:00:17 UTC+1 użytkownik Krunalkumar Shah napisał: > > > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:16:56 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote: > > > > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 17:28:44 UTC+1 użytkownik Krunalkumar Shah napisał: > > > > > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 9:28:37 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote: > > > > > > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 16:29:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Richard Heathfield napisał: > > > > > > > > > On 24/12/16 15:07, Krunalkumar Shah wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I don't care what people thinks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Righty-ho. In that case, I don't care what you think, either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *PLONK* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sorry for heathfield, he is well known (hard to say a word here - halfredneck? wretch?) here [same like some of his weird colegues: will attack you if you dont care for their ultrastupid belifs] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as to topic is hard to answer becouse of one reason (it was > > > > > > > > already talked, and repeating it specially for you is timewaste: headers are burdensome thats why they should be > > > > > > > > get rid (that means than type info should be contained in > > > > > > > > binaries > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (note that it is easier to get rid of "export headers" (export declarations) than "import headers" (import declarations) - when you call imported /**/foo(/**/) you would need > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) make compilation of given part dependant on binary of binaries attached in commandline (this is maybe not so scary as you consider instead of include "stdio.h" you could use "link stdio;" or something like that, but is some violation of present 'separation' ) > > > > > > > > 2) you could provide type info in each call of foo, > > > > > > > > like (char*) foo( (int) a, (int) b, (char*) c ); > > > > > > > > this maybe is a bit burdensome, more if you gave plenty of cals > > > > > > > > 3) you could vrite this declaration in a file close as you do now > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is IMO worth it though, and i think headers could be getting rid (or maybe goin optional see point 3) for a few years before now > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who are you fir? I am confused by your name. And why you are apologizing in place of heathfield? are you his relative, or strongly supporter of him.? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am this group 'representative' and want to say that such users as heathfield of Thompson have no monopoly to make rules (though they try hard) for other users aspecially if they rules are just stupid and cannot be taken > > > > > > [this dont mean nor rules at all - but i just belive in other rules (btw recently im so sick and feel so much phisical pain that i am not quite in a shape, i feel i should improve myself, but thats the other story] > > > > > > > > > > > > > He is having no qualities of being well known. And has no rights to write " Any suggestion are welcomed and please feel free to ask me anything" and other thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can fire a case against him, if This group is not for public. but here it is public group any one can put anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever leave him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but from now it is lesson for all authers who are reading this, that writing any suggestion welcomed etc etc are easy but to follow it is truely hard. and someone has to aplogize, which is most wrost. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think he should apologize here, but what we can, we are common person and he is well known. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And thanks fir for answering. > > > > > > > As you told me that you are repeating the same topic about which the discussion was already done, but think about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > History is to be repeated, and if not I repeat then someone else surly will. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > > > > > Nice to talk with you. and you don't need to apologize, its ok. > > > > > > > Krunalkumar Shah > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What!!!! > > > > > You are the representative.... I can't believe. > > > > > > > > > > but as you know this group is publicly available, can you please give me any proof that you are the representative? > > > > > Here anyone can be anything. > > > > > I can say i am the owner of google and 50% partner, but i cant prove. > > > > > So please prove that you are the said one. > > > > > I am requesting you. can you please give me any proof? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance with hoping that you surely will. > > > > > Krunalkumar Shah > > > > > > > > now you sound stupid (and this is bad becouse it would be better to hold some decent level of intelligence not dwell > > > > in total timewaste and meaningless flowmaking) > > > > > > > > Im representative coz i was writing and reading here long enough to be considered as a active user and representative > > > > > > Yaaa... > > > Thats right.... > > > Sorry for doing stupidity. > > > but sometimes it is good to be stupid logically not like heathfield. > > > > > > And This is logical thing, nothing like stupid in it. > > > > I am also writing here and active, then will I be the owner? > > im not sure if thios group wold be worth buyin (to less interesting content here) what is thios? what is buyin? please correct it. I am not gettng.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-24 09:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b744f9c3-d2d8-44ee-a3d7-95eabe7fd7f5@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #100174 |
W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 18:51:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Krunalkumar Shah napisał: > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 11:16:22 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote: > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 18:20:54 UTC+1 użytkownik Krunalkumar Shah napisał: > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:42:50 PM UTC+5:30, Krunalkumar Shah wrote: > > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:36:17 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote: > > > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 18:00:17 UTC+1 użytkownik Krunalkumar Shah napisał: > > > > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:16:56 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote: > > > > > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 17:28:44 UTC+1 użytkownik Krunalkumar Shah napisał: > > > > > > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 9:28:37 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote: > > > > > > > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 16:29:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Richard Heathfield napisał: > > > > > > > > > > On 24/12/16 15:07, Krunalkumar Shah wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I don't care what people thinks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Righty-ho. In that case, I don't care what you think, either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *PLONK* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sorry for heathfield, he is well known (hard to say a word here - halfredneck? wretch?) here [same like some of his weird colegues: will attack you if you dont care for their ultrastupid belifs] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as to topic is hard to answer becouse of one reason (it was > > > > > > > > > already talked, and repeating it specially for you is timewaste: headers are burdensome thats why they should be > > > > > > > > > get rid (that means than type info should be contained in > > > > > > > > > binaries > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (note that it is easier to get rid of "export headers" (export declarations) than "import headers" (import declarations) - when you call imported /**/foo(/**/) you would need > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) make compilation of given part dependant on binary of binaries attached in commandline (this is maybe not so scary as you consider instead of include "stdio.h" you could use "link stdio;" or something like that, but is some violation of present 'separation' ) > > > > > > > > > 2) you could provide type info in each call of foo, > > > > > > > > > like (char*) foo( (int) a, (int) b, (char*) c ); > > > > > > > > > this maybe is a bit burdensome, more if you gave plenty of cals > > > > > > > > > 3) you could vrite this declaration in a file close as you do now > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is IMO worth it though, and i think headers could be getting rid (or maybe goin optional see point 3) for a few years before now > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who are you fir? I am confused by your name. And why you are apologizing in place of heathfield? are you his relative, or strongly supporter of him.? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am this group 'representative' and want to say that such users as heathfield of Thompson have no monopoly to make rules (though they try hard) for other users aspecially if they rules are just stupid and cannot be taken > > > > > > > [this dont mean nor rules at all - but i just belive in other rules (btw recently im so sick and feel so much phisical pain that i am not quite in a shape, i feel i should improve myself, but thats the other story] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He is having no qualities of being well known. And has no rights to write " Any suggestion are welcomed and please feel free to ask me anything" and other thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can fire a case against him, if This group is not for public. but here it is public group any one can put anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever leave him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but from now it is lesson for all authers who are reading this, that writing any suggestion welcomed etc etc are easy but to follow it is truely hard. and someone has to aplogize, which is most wrost. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think he should apologize here, but what we can, we are common person and he is well known. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And thanks fir for answering. > > > > > > > > As you told me that you are repeating the same topic about which the discussion was already done, but think about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > History is to be repeated, and if not I repeat then someone else surly will. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > > > > > > Nice to talk with you. and you don't need to apologize, its ok. > > > > > > > > Krunalkumar Shah > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What!!!! > > > > > > You are the representative.... I can't believe. > > > > > > > > > > > > but as you know this group is publicly available, can you please give me any proof that you are the representative? > > > > > > Here anyone can be anything. > > > > > > I can say i am the owner of google and 50% partner, but i cant prove. > > > > > > So please prove that you are the said one. > > > > > > I am requesting you. can you please give me any proof? > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance with hoping that you surely will. > > > > > > Krunalkumar Shah > > > > > > > > > > now you sound stupid (and this is bad becouse it would be better to hold some decent level of intelligence not dwell > > > > > in total timewaste and meaningless flowmaking) > > > > > > > > > > Im representative coz i was writing and reading here long enough to be considered as a active user and representative > > > > > > > > Yaaa... > > > > Thats right.... > > > > Sorry for doing stupidity. > > > > but sometimes it is good to be stupid logically not like heathfield. > > > > > > > > And This is logical thing, nothing like stupid in it. > > > > > > I am also writing here and active, then will I be the owner? > > > > im not sure if thios group wold be worth buyin (to less interesting content here) > > what is thios? what is buyin? > > please correct it. I am not gettng. i usually let people guess - or drop out, ( I am the One whose Language is full of Riddles )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-24 10:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <708d7a5c-c6cf-4829-a011-1985a61408ac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #100177 |
On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 11:27:35 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote: > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 18:51:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Krunalkumar Shah napisał: > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 11:16:22 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote: > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 18:20:54 UTC+1 użytkownik Krunalkumar Shah napisał: > > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:42:50 PM UTC+5:30, Krunalkumar Shah wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:36:17 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote: > > > > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 18:00:17 UTC+1 użytkownik Krunalkumar Shah napisał: > > > > > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:16:56 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote: > > > > > > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 17:28:44 UTC+1 użytkownik Krunalkumar Shah napisał: > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 9:28:37 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote: > > > > > > > > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 16:29:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Richard Heathfield napisał: > > > > > > > > > > > On 24/12/16 15:07, Krunalkumar Shah wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't care what people thinks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Righty-ho. In that case, I don't care what you think, either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *PLONK* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sorry for heathfield, he is well known (hard to say a word here - halfredneck? wretch?) here [same like some of his weird colegues: will attack you if you dont care for their ultrastupid belifs] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as to topic is hard to answer becouse of one reason (it was > > > > > > > > > > already talked, and repeating it specially for you is timewaste: headers are burdensome thats why they should be > > > > > > > > > > get rid (that means than type info should be contained in > > > > > > > > > > binaries > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (note that it is easier to get rid of "export headers" (export declarations) than "import headers" (import declarations) - when you call imported /**/foo(/**/) you would need > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) make compilation of given part dependant on binary of binaries attached in commandline (this is maybe not so scary as you consider instead of include "stdio.h" you could use "link stdio;" or something like that, but is some violation of present 'separation' ) > > > > > > > > > > 2) you could provide type info in each call of foo, > > > > > > > > > > like (char*) foo( (int) a, (int) b, (char*) c ); > > > > > > > > > > this maybe is a bit burdensome, more if you gave plenty of cals > > > > > > > > > > 3) you could vrite this declaration in a file close as you do now > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is IMO worth it though, and i think headers could be getting rid (or maybe goin optional see point 3) for a few years before now > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who are you fir? I am confused by your name. And why you are apologizing in place of heathfield? are you his relative, or strongly supporter of him.? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am this group 'representative' and want to say that such users as heathfield of Thompson have no monopoly to make rules (though they try hard) for other users aspecially if they rules are just stupid and cannot be taken > > > > > > > > [this dont mean nor rules at all - but i just belive in other rules (btw recently im so sick and feel so much phisical pain that i am not quite in a shape, i feel i should improve myself, but thats the other story] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He is having no qualities of being well known. And has no rights to write " Any suggestion are welcomed and please feel free to ask me anything" and other thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can fire a case against him, if This group is not for public. but here it is public group any one can put anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever leave him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but from now it is lesson for all authers who are reading this, that writing any suggestion welcomed etc etc are easy but to follow it is truely hard. and someone has to aplogize, which is most wrost. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think he should apologize here, but what we can, we are common person and he is well known. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And thanks fir for answering. > > > > > > > > > As you told me that you are repeating the same topic about which the discussion was already done, but think about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > History is to be repeated, and if not I repeat then someone else surly will. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > > > > > > > Nice to talk with you. and you don't need to apologize, its ok. > > > > > > > > > Krunalkumar Shah > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What!!!! > > > > > > > You are the representative.... I can't believe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but as you know this group is publicly available, can you please give me any proof that you are the representative? > > > > > > > Here anyone can be anything. > > > > > > > I can say i am the owner of google and 50% partner, but i cant prove. > > > > > > > So please prove that you are the said one. > > > > > > > I am requesting you. can you please give me any proof? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance with hoping that you surely will. > > > > > > > Krunalkumar Shah > > > > > > > > > > > > now you sound stupid (and this is bad becouse it would be better to hold some decent level of intelligence not dwell > > > > > > in total timewaste and meaningless flowmaking) > > > > > > > > > > > > Im representative coz i was writing and reading here long enough to be considered as a active user and representative > > > > > > > > > > Yaaa... > > > > > Thats right.... > > > > > Sorry for doing stupidity. > > > > > but sometimes it is good to be stupid logically not like heathfield. > > > > > > > > > > And This is logical thing, nothing like stupid in it. > > > > > > > > I am also writing here and active, then will I be the owner? > > > > > > im not sure if thios group wold be worth buyin (to less interesting content here) > > > > what is thios? what is buyin? > > > > please correct it. I am not gettng. > > i usually let people guess - or drop out, ( I am the One whose Language is full of Riddles ) Ok, I am guessing that you had write that I am stupid? is it good if i take this meaning. look guessing is not always right. and sometimes big misunderstanding occurs. and i think you should not be the group owner. because owner must be descriptive. got it?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-24 10:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <5be030e5-965e-4157-b9a1-7b20ce1f6983@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #100178 |
W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 19:01:38 UTC+1 użytkownik Krunalkumar Shah napisał: > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 11:27:35 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote: > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 18:51:32 UTC+1 użytkownik Krunalkumar Shah napisał: > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 11:16:22 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote: > > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 18:20:54 UTC+1 użytkownik Krunalkumar Shah napisał: > > > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:42:50 PM UTC+5:30, Krunalkumar Shah wrote: > > > > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:36:17 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote: > > > > > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 18:00:17 UTC+1 użytkownik Krunalkumar Shah napisał: > > > > > > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 10:16:56 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote: > > > > > > > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 17:28:44 UTC+1 użytkownik Krunalkumar Shah napisał: > > > > > > > > > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 9:28:37 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 16:29:20 UTC+1 użytkownik Richard Heathfield napisał: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 24/12/16 15:07, Krunalkumar Shah wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't care what people thinks. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Righty-ho. In that case, I don't care what you think, either. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *PLONK* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sorry for heathfield, he is well known (hard to say a word here - halfredneck? wretch?) here [same like some of his weird colegues: will attack you if you dont care for their ultrastupid belifs] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > as to topic is hard to answer becouse of one reason (it was > > > > > > > > > > > already talked, and repeating it specially for you is timewaste: headers are burdensome thats why they should be > > > > > > > > > > > get rid (that means than type info should be contained in > > > > > > > > > > > binaries > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > (note that it is easier to get rid of "export headers" (export declarations) than "import headers" (import declarations) - when you call imported /**/foo(/**/) you would need > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 1) make compilation of given part dependant on binary of binaries attached in commandline (this is maybe not so scary as you consider instead of include "stdio.h" you could use "link stdio;" or something like that, but is some violation of present 'separation' ) > > > > > > > > > > > 2) you could provide type info in each call of foo, > > > > > > > > > > > like (char*) foo( (int) a, (int) b, (char*) c ); > > > > > > > > > > > this maybe is a bit burdensome, more if you gave plenty of cals > > > > > > > > > > > 3) you could vrite this declaration in a file close as you do now > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is IMO worth it though, and i think headers could be getting rid (or maybe goin optional see point 3) for a few years before now > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Who are you fir? I am confused by your name. And why you are apologizing in place of heathfield? are you his relative, or strongly supporter of him.? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am this group 'representative' and want to say that such users as heathfield of Thompson have no monopoly to make rules (though they try hard) for other users aspecially if they rules are just stupid and cannot be taken > > > > > > > > > [this dont mean nor rules at all - but i just belive in other rules (btw recently im so sick and feel so much phisical pain that i am not quite in a shape, i feel i should improve myself, but thats the other story] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > He is having no qualities of being well known. And has no rights to write " Any suggestion are welcomed and please feel free to ask me anything" and other thing. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can fire a case against him, if This group is not for public. but here it is public group any one can put anything. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever leave him. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but from now it is lesson for all authers who are reading this, that writing any suggestion welcomed etc etc are easy but to follow it is truely hard. and someone has to aplogize, which is most wrost. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think he should apologize here, but what we can, we are common person and he is well known. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And thanks fir for answering. > > > > > > > > > > As you told me that you are repeating the same topic about which the discussion was already done, but think about > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > History is to be repeated, and if not I repeat then someone else surly will. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks a lot. > > > > > > > > > > Nice to talk with you. and you don't need to apologize, its ok. > > > > > > > > > > Krunalkumar Shah > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What!!!! > > > > > > > > You are the representative.... I can't believe. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > but as you know this group is publicly available, can you please give me any proof that you are the representative? > > > > > > > > Here anyone can be anything. > > > > > > > > I can say i am the owner of google and 50% partner, but i cant prove. > > > > > > > > So please prove that you are the said one. > > > > > > > > I am requesting you. can you please give me any proof? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks in advance with hoping that you surely will. > > > > > > > > Krunalkumar Shah > > > > > > > > > > > > > > now you sound stupid (and this is bad becouse it would be better to hold some decent level of intelligence not dwell > > > > > > > in total timewaste and meaningless flowmaking) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Im representative coz i was writing and reading here long enough to be considered as a active user and representative > > > > > > > > > > > > Yaaa... > > > > > > Thats right.... > > > > > > Sorry for doing stupidity. > > > > > > but sometimes it is good to be stupid logically not like heathfield. > > > > > > > > > > > > And This is logical thing, nothing like stupid in it. > > > > > > > > > > I am also writing here and active, then will I be the owner? > > > > > > > > im not sure if thios group wold be worth buyin (to less interesting content here) > > > > > > what is thios? what is buyin? > > > > > > please correct it. I am not gettng. > > > > i usually let people guess - or drop out, ( I am the One whose Language is full of Riddles ) > > Ok, I am guessing that you had write that I am stupid? is it good if i take this meaning. > > look guessing is not always right. and sometimes big misunderstanding occurs. > and i think you should not be the group owner. > because owner must be descriptive. > > got it? not quite - imo you got even some fine energy (i felt a moment like youre a fellow who has light head and good mood - see things in positive shape ) - as this is contagious i even felt better for a while [ and it is quite opposite to me who last 5 days is sick live in some kind of acute pain and almost feel like dayin - in such state seein a people who thinks happy is like deeply stunning ] but such good mood is volatile - i could use it egoistically as a cheap painkiller (my friend said dont use painkillers but im not sure if he minded this kind ones ) untill it works but you will lost it soon i think
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-24 09:52 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <990bbe1d-3aa3-452e-9e3a-5b0b3daea593@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #100173 |
On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 5:46:22 PM UTC, fir wrote: > > > I am also writing here and active, then will I be the owner? > > im not sure if thios group wold be worth buyin (to less > interesting content here) > The group has deteriorated. Other social media has drawn many C experts away, and then C itself is no longer the queen of programming languages.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-24 09:57 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3d1f337d-44dc-42ae-a91f-017ccf381ecc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #100175 |
On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 11:22:14 PM UTC+5:30, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 5:46:22 PM UTC, fir wrote: > > > > > I am also writing here and active, then will I be the owner? > > > > im not sure if thios group wold be worth buyin (to less > > interesting content here) > > > The group has deteriorated. Other social media has drawn many C > experts away, and then C itself is no longer the queen of > programming languages. Yes you are right. C is not the queen but the king of programming languages. and it is also true that the group has deteriorated by some of above.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-24 10:20 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fbf0f8e1-bfe4-48ed-b16b-cbfa5bf59d9c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #100175 |
W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 18:52:14 UTC+1 użytkownik Malcolm McLean napisał: > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 5:46:22 PM UTC, fir wrote: > > > > > I am also writing here and active, then will I be the owner? > > > > im not sure if thios group wold be worth buyin (to less > > interesting content here) > > > The group has deteriorated. Other social media has drawn many C > experts away, and then C itself is no longer the queen of > programming languages. imo c still rules totally but the problem of this group is such (what was already mentioned not once): - alright some need to learn c, it will take roughly 10 years, but what after that - after that you know c learning it is totally uninteresting then but you would like to learn how to write so many great apps in such c you know - but nobody discusses this (it is c real application) this group drops out here and is totally boring and unusable and it makes me evenn feeling bad here (as i feel i waste so much time in a group of lamas (c newbies) where myriads of really interesting topics are waiting to be discussed ) that makes this group bad
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jt@toerring.de (Jens Thoms Toerring) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-24 18:43 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ec7tugFtmo3U1@mid.uni-berlin.de> |
| In reply to | #100159 |
Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> wrote: > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 9:28:37 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote: It's always so nice to see when two kindred spirits meet! In the left corner we have Prof. fir, the local champion and a programmer at large, well known for his extensive knowlegde of C. All here love the elegance of his arguments and the meekness he shows when someone is so stupid as to not follow them without questions. But wait, in the other corner we have an unknown, but his nom de guerre should make us all careful not to dismiss him lightly: it's EINSTEIN. Obviously, he must be nearly as good as our Prof. fir - or is he even better? This will be an interesting evening for all of us, ladies and gentlemen! Get yourself a beer (the first one is on the house) and enough popcorn and enjoy the show! -- \ Jens Thoms Toerring ___ jt@toerring.de \__________________________ http://toerring.de
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-24 11:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <17b5f8ec-6d64-478b-b7f4-4d02cae86c6f@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #100181 |
W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 19:43:38 UTC+1 użytkownik Jens Thoms Toerring napisał: > Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Saturday, December 24, 2016 at 9:28:37 PM UTC+5:30, fir wrote: > > It's always so nice to see when two kindred spirits meet! > > In the left corner we have Prof. fir, the local champion > and a programmer at large, well known for his extensive > knowlegde of C. All here love the elegance of his arguments > and the meekness he shows when someone is so stupid as to > not follow them without questions. > > But wait, in the other corner we have an unknown, but his > nom de guerre should make us all careful not to dismiss > him lightly: it's EINSTEIN. Obviously, he must be nearly > as good as our Prof. fir - or is he even better? > > This will be an interesting evening for all of us, ladies > and gentlemen! Get yourself a beer (the first one is on the > house) and enough popcorn and enjoy the show! > Krunalkumar Shah has just a fresh wiev and this is state which boosts his intelligence temporarely (i think fresh wiev boostes everybody intelligence ) so it is possibly more occasions to make some 'unusuality' (which im always after - even sick)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Krunalkumar Shah <einstein1410@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-24 11:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <41a50964-4b4b-4944-8511-b0c7729dea81@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #100182 |
Again fir you are confusing me. What do you mean by wiev? And what you want to tell about unusuality.? Krunalkumar Shah
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-24 11:44 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <a8049577-4e15-4430-abe1-5bec2e12d249@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #100184 |
W dniu sobota, 24 grudnia 2016 20:10:01 UTC+1 użytkownik Krunalkumar Shah napisał: > Again fir you are confusing me. What do you mean by wiev? > And what you want to tell about unusuality.? > you being newcomer presented wiev for a while (by wiev i mean opposite of view, ) i think that being serious i cannot answer your question without establishing view (indeed you asking for a "view") which is bad (esp as i feel sick again), wievs are far more fine to me theoretically one should also consider UNDEFINED im nt sure it this is just linera "view - UNDEFINED - wiev" but for some it is better to stick to UNDEFINED than to view here (more i dont want to answer as i dont feel i got something interesting to say and that would be timewaste)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4 5 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web