Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #104113 > unrolled thread
| Started by | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-02-18 00:43 +0000 |
| Last post | 2017-02-25 13:13 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 539 — 32 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-18 00:43 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-18 02:41 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2017-02-20 18:00 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-20 18:46 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-18 11:47 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-18 10:08 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-18 23:30 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-18 15:50 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-19 00:53 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-18 16:01 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-18 19:20 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 09:41 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-19 09:14 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 10:30 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-19 07:21 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 17:28 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-19 11:53 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 18:12 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-19 13:10 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-19 20:24 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-19 11:51 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-19 12:26 -0800
Getting yourself killfiled (Was: Is this valid C?) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2017-02-19 21:23 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-19 11:23 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-19 07:33 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-19 15:35 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-19 19:42 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-19 12:04 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-19 20:51 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-19 22:23 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-19 14:48 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-20 00:36 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-20 09:58 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-20 09:14 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-20 12:17 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-19 23:16 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-20 00:24 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-20 00:56 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-20 01:25 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-20 11:14 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-20 14:44 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-20 15:18 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-20 15:51 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-20 16:16 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-02-23 12:23 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-19 15:49 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-20 00:55 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-20 10:05 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-20 07:08 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-20 16:23 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-20 16:03 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-20 08:45 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-20 09:17 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-20 12:25 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-20 12:29 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-20 13:20 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-20 13:50 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-20 14:08 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-20 15:16 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-20 16:19 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-21 09:28 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-21 09:19 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-21 19:21 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-21 19:21 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-21 21:34 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-21 21:31 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-22 10:09 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-22 10:43 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-22 12:43 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-22 15:07 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-22 09:26 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-22 16:28 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-22 17:18 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-22 09:22 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-22 19:20 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-22 11:34 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-22 11:49 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-22 20:11 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-22 21:45 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-22 23:13 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-22 23:45 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-23 10:35 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-23 01:10 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-23 00:35 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-22 16:42 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-23 11:06 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-23 11:07 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-23 10:49 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-23 12:18 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-23 17:30 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-02-23 18:48 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-23 01:52 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-23 11:37 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-23 15:11 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-23 07:36 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-23 16:49 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-23 09:04 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-23 17:09 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-23 16:14 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-23 16:51 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-23 17:39 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-22 22:57 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-22 15:31 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-22 15:46 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-22 18:35 -0600
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-23 00:46 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-22 22:39 -0600
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-23 10:57 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-02-24 17:57 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-23 11:17 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2017-02-23 19:03 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-23 20:11 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-02-23 20:36 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-23 21:20 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-02-24 18:28 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-24 18:45 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-02-24 19:53 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-24 12:06 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-24 20:38 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-25 10:11 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-25 10:15 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-24 15:02 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-25 12:10 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-02-25 10:33 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-25 13:25 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-02-24 21:27 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-24 22:00 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-28 20:17 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-25 01:22 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-24 17:40 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-25 11:06 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-25 12:43 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-25 21:32 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-26 10:39 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-25 21:53 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-26 11:07 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-02-25 19:19 -0700
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-26 17:12 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-02-26 00:13 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 00:56 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-24 01:19 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 03:18 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-02-24 14:03 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-24 14:28 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 16:20 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-24 07:49 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 17:03 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-02-24 16:19 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-24 09:50 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-02-24 18:48 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-24 17:25 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 16:40 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-02-24 16:50 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-25 19:52 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2017-02-26 09:17 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-24 17:44 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-24 18:07 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-02-24 18:45 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-24 19:56 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-25 19:58 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-24 10:01 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2017-02-24 14:28 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-02-24 16:08 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-02-24 18:18 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2017-02-25 15:37 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-21 10:56 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-02-27 05:18 -0600
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-27 08:46 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-02-27 11:26 -0600
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-27 13:57 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-27 14:06 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-02-28 04:25 -0600
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-28 15:45 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-01 03:46 -0600
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-01 06:30 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-01 16:31 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-01 08:37 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-01 19:02 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-01 10:49 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-01 21:00 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-01 14:02 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-01 12:28 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-01 12:17 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-07 14:53 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-01 09:10 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-01 09:51 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> - 2017-03-02 19:44 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-02 12:05 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-02 04:19 -0600
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-02 06:06 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-02 10:16 -0600
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-02 15:32 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-03 04:20 -0600
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-03 05:19 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-03 08:22 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-02 19:34 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-02 08:02 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Andrew Haley <andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> - 2017-03-02 10:54 -0600
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-02 16:35 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-16 18:30 -0700
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-01 07:52 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-20 13:53 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-20 12:58 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-20 17:28 -0600
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-20 16:03 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-21 09:14 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-23 05:10 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-23 07:43 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-26 07:07 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-26 09:17 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-23 08:17 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-23 09:11 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-23 09:46 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-23 09:55 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-23 10:27 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-02-23 20:32 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-23 12:54 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-26 10:06 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-26 13:13 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-17 11:56 -0700
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-17 12:32 -0700
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-26 14:36 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-30 08:30 -0700
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-01 09:34 -0700
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-19 15:54 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-23 13:02 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-23 14:53 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-25 18:33 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-19 10:58 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-02-19 09:06 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-19 10:53 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-19 09:06 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-19 16:25 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-19 11:42 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-19 17:45 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-23 11:57 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-23 21:27 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-25 05:03 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-23 13:39 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-25 17:42 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-23 16:41 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-24 10:04 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 08:43 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-24 14:53 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 12:57 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-24 20:04 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 15:35 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-24 12:37 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 16:18 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-24 15:21 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-24 16:09 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-24 17:45 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-25 14:44 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 20:08 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-25 14:15 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 21:48 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-02-25 10:35 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-25 09:12 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-25 14:24 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-25 15:59 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-24 18:03 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 21:50 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-24 19:04 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 23:20 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-02-25 21:26 -0700
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-26 10:09 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-26 17:41 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2017-02-26 12:56 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-27 00:23 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2017-02-26 19:02 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-26 13:49 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2017-02-26 19:55 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-26 12:05 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-27 00:52 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-26 22:01 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 10:42 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 08:51 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-27 13:59 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-02-27 15:36 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-27 10:01 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-02-27 18:57 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 10:47 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-27 16:35 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 15:14 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-27 21:05 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-27 21:26 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 17:12 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 17:12 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-27 23:20 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 18:45 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 00:05 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 19:48 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 02:32 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 23:27 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-28 17:55 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 12:23 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 05:09 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 12:27 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-28 10:06 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 13:16 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-02 15:54 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-03 11:26 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-03 10:33 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-03 12:30 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-03 11:32 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-03 13:48 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-03 12:41 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-03 12:47 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-03 12:57 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-03 13:12 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-03 13:57 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-03 05:23 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-03 15:58 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-03 07:13 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-03 12:53 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-03 19:33 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-03 21:18 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-03 21:23 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-28 19:58 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 15:21 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 21:07 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 08:22 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-28 21:09 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 08:24 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 15:23 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-28 09:01 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 12:30 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 18:05 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 13:27 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 19:01 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 15:26 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 21:13 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 08:28 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-28 20:12 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 15:38 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-02-28 20:46 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 08:29 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 21:15 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 08:30 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2017-02-28 23:08 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 08:34 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-28 13:40 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-02-28 19:14 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 15:39 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 21:17 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 08:36 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-02-27 17:19 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-27 17:52 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-27 19:20 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-26 10:15 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-26 14:12 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-26 15:50 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-27 00:50 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-26 20:12 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ralf Damaschke <rwspam@gmx.de> - 2017-02-27 16:59 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-27 19:35 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-27 12:12 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-23 11:36 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-23 16:43 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-24 12:22 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 15:39 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-24 13:26 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-24 18:53 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 20:14 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 20:13 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-24 18:33 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 21:58 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-24 19:38 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 23:21 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-25 06:57 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-25 16:08 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-24 15:03 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-25 12:12 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 20:20 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 20:19 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-19 08:42 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-19 08:58 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-23 16:45 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-24 11:43 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 15:42 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-24 13:40 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 20:23 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-24 18:54 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-24 23:17 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-25 19:15 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-25 23:10 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-26 12:00 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-26 15:57 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-26 21:54 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-26 19:45 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-27 01:29 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 10:52 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-02-27 16:04 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 11:16 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-27 20:42 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 17:18 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-28 01:34 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-27 17:55 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-28 02:16 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-28 10:09 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 23:28 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-28 10:16 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 12:31 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-28 20:17 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 19:26 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 15:42 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-28 23:30 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 08:37 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-27 09:19 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-27 09:14 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 11:00 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-27 16:24 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 10:58 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-27 16:39 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 15:19 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-02-27 20:57 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-27 21:52 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 17:21 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-27 23:33 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 18:49 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-27 16:06 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 19:52 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-27 17:10 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 23:31 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-28 06:44 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 00:14 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 20:00 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 02:37 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 23:37 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 17:20 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-27 21:21 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 17:29 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-27 15:04 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 18:58 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-27 16:18 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 20:03 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-27 17:17 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 23:40 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 02:57 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 23:46 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 00:01 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-27 19:23 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 20:05 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-27 17:51 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 00:00 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-28 09:23 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 13:32 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-01 07:36 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 15:43 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 21:21 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 11:39 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-01 16:56 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-01 09:12 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-01 19:07 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-30 08:34 -0700
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-01 18:00 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-03-01 09:49 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-16 20:52 -0700
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-01 14:26 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 11:40 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-01 16:57 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? me <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2017-03-01 10:19 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-28 20:25 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 15:45 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-01 14:28 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2017-03-01 03:17 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 11:43 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-03-01 10:28 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-28 11:35 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 15:46 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 03:07 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-27 23:56 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 20:18 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-27 18:05 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 00:02 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-27 21:36 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 17:32 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-28 01:29 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 00:09 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 05:22 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 12:36 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 18:10 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 13:35 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 18:56 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 15:46 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 19:39 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 15:48 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-28 10:46 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 12:43 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-01 02:08 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 11:52 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-01 16:58 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-03-01 09:32 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-01 21:50 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-03-01 09:18 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-26 19:47 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-26 19:24 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 11:08 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-27 10:15 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 15:08 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-27 13:26 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 17:40 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-27 15:37 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-27 18:54 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 19:02 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 00:35 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 19:44 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 02:27 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 23:20 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-28 04:45 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-28 17:57 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-02-28 11:27 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 13:06 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-02-28 06:26 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 13:09 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-28 17:36 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 13:10 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-01 07:28 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-28 15:49 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-01 14:30 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-01 01:38 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 11:54 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 11:53 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-02 07:35 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-01 16:50 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-27 21:45 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-02-27 17:43 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-02-24 16:59 -0500
Re: Is this valid C? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-19 11:03 +0100
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-19 12:10 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-19 10:34 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-23 22:39 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-24 11:49 +1300
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-23 15:25 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-23 15:09 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-25 14:29 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-25 07:04 -0800
Re: Is this valid C? BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-25 15:27 +0000
Re: Is this valid C? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-25 13:13 -0800
Page 15 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 27 Next page →
| From | Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 18:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn3vfsob8to1.62t.ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
| In reply to | #104902 |
On 2017-02-27, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
> Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> writes:
>> On 2017-02-27, BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote:
>>> On 27/02/2017 13:51, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> Again, incorrect. With the ternary operator, only one of the two
>>>> subordinate expressions are evaluated, never both.
>>>
>>> If I compile:
>>>
>>> printf("%d\n", rand() ? 2+3 : 4+5*6);
>>>
>>> with gcc, then the output code contains both '5' and '34', the two
>>> possible expressions.
>>>
>>> So both have been evaluated in this case.
>>
>> Are you talking about both '5' and '34' appearing in a single run,
>> or '5' appearing in one run, and '34' appearing in another run?
>>
>> Can you show the complete code, plus the output of a few runs?
>
> He's talking about the generated assembly or machine code, not the
> run-time output. And he's assuming that if the constant 34 appears in
> the assembly code output, then the expression has been "evaluated".
>
> In fact, since 4+5*6 is a constant expression, it makes no difference in
> run-time behavior whether it's evaluated or not. If the output happens
> to be 5, then the generated code that loads the value 34 is not
> executed, and vice versa.
That makes sense. I had mistaken "the output code" for the runtime output.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 10:47 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o91hio$lsd$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #104854 |
On 2/27/2017 8:59 AM, BartC wrote:
> On 27/02/2017 13:51, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>
>> Again, incorrect. With the ternary operator, only one of the two
>> subordinate expressions are evaluated, never both.
>
> If I compile:
>
> printf("%d\n", rand() ? 2+3 : 4+5*6);
>
> with gcc, then the output code contains both '5' and '34', the two
> possible expressions.
>
> So both have been evaluated in this case.
>
Then your gcc is broken - in many ways. On my system it always prints 5
because rand() never returned 0;
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 16:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o91kds$186$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104877 |
On 27/02/17 15:47, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 2/27/2017 8:59 AM, BartC wrote:
>> On 27/02/2017 13:51, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>
>>> Again, incorrect. With the ternary operator, only one of the two
>>> subordinate expressions are evaluated, never both.
>>
>> If I compile:
>>
>> printf("%d\n", rand() ? 2+3 : 4+5*6);
>>
>> with gcc, then the output code contains both '5' and '34', the two
>> possible expressions.
>>
>> So both have been evaluated in this case.
>>
>
> Then your gcc is broken - in many ways.
But why?
> On my system it always prints 5
> because rand() never returned 0;
He didn't say it /prints/ both values. He says the output /code/
contains both values - which indeed it does. Here is the relevant
assembly output:
call rand
testl %eax, %eax
je .L2
movl $5, %eax
jmp .L3
.L2:
movl $34, %eax
.L3:
(commonality)
As long as the /program's/ output is only one of 5 and 34, gcc is
conforming (on the grounds that a strictly conforming program can't tell
that 4+5*6 has been evaluated).
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 15:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o9216d$k7o$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #104888 |
On 2/27/2017 11:35 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 27/02/17 15:47, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 2/27/2017 8:59 AM, BartC wrote:
>>> On 27/02/2017 13:51, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>
>>>> Again, incorrect. With the ternary operator, only one of the two
>>>> subordinate expressions are evaluated, never both.
>>>
>>> If I compile:
>>>
>>> printf("%d\n", rand() ? 2+3 : 4+5*6);
>>>
>>> with gcc, then the output code contains both '5' and '34', the two
>>> possible expressions.
>>>
>>> So both have been evaluated in this case.
>>>
>>
>> Then your gcc is broken - in many ways.
>
> But why?
>
>> On my system it always prints 5
>> because rand() never returned 0;
>
> He didn't say it /prints/ both values. He says the output /code/
> contains both values - which indeed it does. Here is the relevant
> assembly output:
>
> call rand
> testl %eax, %eax
> je .L2
> movl $5, %eax
> jmp .L3
> .L2:
> movl $34, %eax
> .L3:
> (commonality)
>
> As long as the /program's/ output is only one of 5 and 34, gcc is
> conforming (on the grounds that a strictly conforming program can't tell
> that 4+5*6 has been evaluated).
>
OK, if you're looking at the generated assembler, the compiler replaces
the constant. But precedence and associativity are RUN TIME operations.
Two entirely different things.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 21:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o9246f$n5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104923 |
On 27/02/17 20:14, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 2/27/2017 11:35 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 27/02/17 15:47, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> On 2/27/2017 8:59 AM, BartC wrote:
>>>> On 27/02/2017 13:51, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Again, incorrect. With the ternary operator, only one of the two
>>>>> subordinate expressions are evaluated, never both.
>>>>
>>>> If I compile:
>>>>
>>>> printf("%d\n", rand() ? 2+3 : 4+5*6);
>>>>
>>>> with gcc, then the output code contains both '5' and '34', the two
>>>> possible expressions.
>>>>
>>>> So both have been evaluated in this case.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then your gcc is broken - in many ways.
>>
>> But why?
>>
>>> On my system it always prints 5
>>> because rand() never returned 0;
>>
>> He didn't say it /prints/ both values. He says the output /code/
>> contains both values - which indeed it does. Here is the relevant
>> assembly output:
>>
>> call rand
>> testl %eax, %eax
>> je .L2
>> movl $5, %eax
>> jmp .L3
>> .L2:
>> movl $34, %eax
>> .L3:
>> (commonality)
>>
>> As long as the /program's/ output is only one of 5 and 34, gcc is
>> conforming (on the grounds that a strictly conforming program can't tell
>> that 4+5*6 has been evaluated).
>>
>
> OK, if you're looking at the generated assembler, the compiler replaces
> the constant.
Right. That's all he was saying.
> But precedence and associativity are RUN TIME operations.
> Two entirely different things.
Actually, they are abstract language concepts that may or may not
translate into observable run-time behaviour. You are, however, quite
right that on closer inspection this particular behaviour is a red herring.
I actually found it very difficult to come up with an example of
observable behaviour that showed that precedence and associativity
determine the binding of operands to operands rather than specify an
order in which the results of operations must be calculated. James
Kuyper did a much better job of it.
I realise that you're sticking to your guns and you're not about to
change your mind, but to do so you are forced to ignore the Standard and
instead rely on three very documents in which others here have already
found significant flaws.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 21:26 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o925e0$4e4$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104935 |
On 27/02/17 21:05, Richard Heathfield wrote: > to come up with an example of observable behaviour that showed that > precedence and associativity determine the binding of operands to operands operands to /operators/. Furrfu, Rich! -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 17:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o9284l$eav$2@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #104938 |
On 2/27/2017 4:26 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 27/02/17 21:05, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> to come up with an example of observable behaviour that showed that >> precedence and associativity determine the binding of operands to >> operands > > operands to /operators/. Furrfu, Rich! > I understood what you meant, even if it isn't what you said :) -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 17:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o9283r$eav$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #104935 |
On 2/27/2017 4:05 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 27/02/17 20:14, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 2/27/2017 11:35 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 27/02/17 15:47, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 2/27/2017 8:59 AM, BartC wrote:
>>>>> On 27/02/2017 13:51, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Again, incorrect. With the ternary operator, only one of the two
>>>>>> subordinate expressions are evaluated, never both.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I compile:
>>>>>
>>>>> printf("%d\n", rand() ? 2+3 : 4+5*6);
>>>>>
>>>>> with gcc, then the output code contains both '5' and '34', the two
>>>>> possible expressions.
>>>>>
>>>>> So both have been evaluated in this case.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then your gcc is broken - in many ways.
>>>
>>> But why?
>>>
>>>> On my system it always prints 5
>>>> because rand() never returned 0;
>>>
>>> He didn't say it /prints/ both values. He says the output /code/
>>> contains both values - which indeed it does. Here is the relevant
>>> assembly output:
>>>
>>> call rand
>>> testl %eax, %eax
>>> je .L2
>>> movl $5, %eax
>>> jmp .L3
>>> .L2:
>>> movl $34, %eax
>>> .L3:
>>> (commonality)
>>>
>>> As long as the /program's/ output is only one of 5 and 34, gcc is
>>> conforming (on the grounds that a strictly conforming program can't tell
>>> that 4+5*6 has been evaluated).
>>>
>>
>> OK, if you're looking at the generated assembler, the compiler replaces
>> the constant.
>
> Right. That's all he was saying.
>
>> But precedence and associativity are RUN TIME operations.
>> Two entirely different things.
>
> Actually, they are abstract language concepts that may or may not
> translate into observable run-time behaviour. You are, however, quite
> right that on closer inspection this particular behaviour is a red herring.
>
> I actually found it very difficult to come up with an example of
> observable behaviour that showed that precedence and associativity
> determine the binding of operands to operands rather than specify an
> order in which the results of operations must be calculated. James
> Kuyper did a much better job of it.
>
Even f(a*b+c) shows precedence rules. * comes before +.
> I realise that you're sticking to your guns and you're not about to
> change your mind, but to do so you are forced to ignore the Standard and
> instead rely on three very documents in which others here have already
> found significant flaws.
>
I am repeating what numerous well-respected organizations say. If what
you say is true, you can obviously come up with other organizations
which agree with you - independent of your interpretation of the standards.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 23:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o92c4n$vt9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104945 |
On 27/02/17 22:12, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 2/27/2017 4:05 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: <snip> >> I realise that you're sticking to your guns and you're not about to >> change your mind, but to do so you are forced to ignore the Standard and >> instead rely on three very documents in which others here have already >> found significant flaws. >> > > I am repeating what numerous well-respected organizations say. If they are well-respected, it is despite the pages you cite rather than because of them. > If what > you say is true, you can obviously come up with other organizations > which agree with you - independent of your interpretation of the standards. James beat me to it. As for the Standard, if my interpretation is wrong, show me *from the Standard*. Show me the text that proves you're right. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 18:45 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o92dil$4h6$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #104960 |
On 2/27/2017 6:20 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 27/02/17 22:12, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 2/27/2017 4:05 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > > <snip> > >>> I realise that you're sticking to your guns and you're not about to >>> change your mind, but to do so you are forced to ignore the Standard and >>> instead rely on three very documents in which others here have already >>> found significant flaws. >>> >> >> I am repeating what numerous well-respected organizations say. > > If they are well-respected, it is despite the pages you cite rather than > because of them. > They are well respected because they know what they are talking about. >> If what >> you say is true, you can obviously come up with other organizations >> which agree with you - independent of your interpretation of the >> standards. > > James beat me to it. > > As for the Standard, if my interpretation is wrong, show me *from the > Standard*. Show me the text that proves you're right. > James said nothing. You made the claims. It's up to you to support them. I supported mine with three independent and respected sources. But you can't do the same. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-28 00:05 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o92epd$8j3$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104965 |
On 27/02/17 23:45, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 2/27/2017 6:20 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 27/02/17 22:12, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 2/27/2017 4:05 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> >> <snip> >> >>>> I realise that you're sticking to your guns and you're not about to >>>> change your mind, but to do so you are forced to ignore the Standard and >>>> instead rely on three very documents in which others here have already >>>> found significant flaws. >>>> >>> >>> I am repeating what numerous well-respected organizations say. >> >> If they are well-respected, it is despite the pages you cite rather than >> because of them. >> > > They are well respected because they know what they are talking about. > >>> If what >>> you say is true, you can obviously come up with other organizations >>> which agree with you - independent of your interpretation of the >>> standards. >> >> James beat me to it. >> >> As for the Standard, if my interpretation is wrong, show me *from the >> Standard*. Show me the text that proves you're right. >> > > James said nothing. James has said a great deal on this subject, and he came up with several counter-examples that showed you to be wrong. You are already communicating with him about that, elsethread, so I'll leave that part of it alone. > You made the claims. It's up to you to support > them. I supported mine with three independent and respected sources. > But you can't do the same. You might respect your sources, but I won't until such time as the errors on them have been fixed. Instead, I'll stick to what the Standard says. That you will not accept the Standard as an authority over academic and commercial interpretations of that Standard is quite ridiculous. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 19:48 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o92h8g$eo8$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #104972 |
On 2/27/2017 7:05 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 27/02/17 23:45, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 2/27/2017 6:20 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 27/02/17 22:12, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 2/27/2017 4:05 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> >>> <snip> >>> >>>>> I realise that you're sticking to your guns and you're not about to >>>>> change your mind, but to do so you are forced to ignore the >>>>> Standard and >>>>> instead rely on three very documents in which others here have already >>>>> found significant flaws. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I am repeating what numerous well-respected organizations say. >>> >>> If they are well-respected, it is despite the pages you cite rather than >>> because of them. >>> >> >> They are well respected because they know what they are talking about. >> >>>> If what >>>> you say is true, you can obviously come up with other organizations >>>> which agree with you - independent of your interpretation of the >>>> standards. >>> >>> James beat me to it. >>> >>> As for the Standard, if my interpretation is wrong, show me *from the >>> Standard*. Show me the text that proves you're right. >>> >> >> James said nothing. > > James has said a great deal on this subject, and he came up with several > counter-examples that showed you to be wrong. You are already > communicating with him about that, elsethread, so I'll leave that part > of it alone. > >> You made the claims. It's up to you to support >> them. I supported mine with three independent and respected sources. >> But you can't do the same. > > You might respect your sources, but I won't until such time as the > errors on them have been fixed. Instead, I'll stick to what the Standard > says. That you will not accept the Standard as an authority over > academic and commercial interpretations of that Standard is quite > ridiculous. > Most of the programming world respects those sources. It seems only a few people in this newsgroup don't. And it's not that I don't accept the standard. I don't accept YOUR INTERPRETATION of the standard. And neither do thousands of other respected organizations out there. But your ego won't let you admit that you are wrong. You think you know more than all of these other organizations. Sorry. You don't. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-28 02:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o92nd3$tst$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #104981 |
On 28/02/17 00:48, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 2/27/2017 7:05 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 27/02/17 23:45, Jerry Stuckle wrote: <snip> >> >>> You made the claims. (Actually you did. All I did was disagree with you.) >>> It's up to you to support >>> them. I supported mine with three independent and respected sources. >>> But you can't do the same. >> >> You might respect your sources, but I won't until such time as the >> errors on them have been fixed. Instead, I'll stick to what the Standard >> says. That you will not accept the Standard as an authority over >> academic and commercial interpretations of that Standard is quite >> ridiculous. > > Most of the programming world respects those sources. Assertions without evidence can be rejected without evidence. If you have some evidence to support the claim, fine, present it by all means. > It seems only a > few people in this newsgroup don't. Well, why would they? The pages you cited are Just Plain Wrong, and they will still be Just Plain Wrong even if a thousand million people think otherwise. They are Just Plain Wrong because they confuse precedence with the order in which operations are performed. > And it's not that I don't accept the standard. I don't accept YOUR > INTERPRETATION of the standard. Show me your interpretation with reference to the Standard. Where does the Standard say I'm wrong? > And neither do thousands of other > respected organizations out there. If their views on precedence determining the order in which operations are performed are as flawed as yours, why would any knowledgeable programmer respect them? > But your ego won't let you admit that you are wrong. Sure it will --- all you have to do is show that I'm wrong with reference to the Standard that defines the language. But you can't do that, can you? > You think you know > more than all of these other organizations. I know more about precedence than the people who wrote the pages you cited. > Sorry. You don't. Well, actually... -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-27 23:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o92u2s$7a0$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #105009 |
On 2/27/2017 9:32 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 28/02/17 00:48, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 2/27/2017 7:05 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 27/02/17 23:45, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > <snip> >>> >>>> You made the claims. > > (Actually you did. All I did was disagree with you.) > >>>> It's up to you to support >>>> them. I supported mine with three independent and respected sources. >>>> But you can't do the same. >>> >>> You might respect your sources, but I won't until such time as the >>> errors on them have been fixed. Instead, I'll stick to what the Standard >>> says. That you will not accept the Standard as an authority over >>> academic and commercial interpretations of that Standard is quite >>> ridiculous. >> >> Most of the programming world respects those sources. > > Assertions without evidence can be rejected without evidence. If you > have some evidence to support the claim, fine, present it by all means. > You are saying the Purdue University, the University of Hawaii and Microsoft are not widely respected? ROFLMAO! How stoopid can you get? >> It seems only a >> few people in this newsgroup don't. > > Well, why would they? The pages you cited are Just Plain Wrong, and they > will still be Just Plain Wrong even if a thousand million people think > otherwise. They are Just Plain Wrong because they confuse precedence > with the order in which operations are performed. > You don't out of complete stoopidity. You argue about the standard all day and night - but you don't UNDERSTAND the standard - as this discussion has once again proven. Why don't you go to each of these organizations and tell them how wrong they are? I am sure they will appreciate your input. >> And it's not that I don't accept the standard. I don't accept YOUR >> INTERPRETATION of the standard. > > Show me your interpretation with reference to the Standard. Where does > the Standard say I'm wrong? > I have shown you independent verification from reputable organizations. I am not going to sit here and argue the meaning of the standard with you or anyone else. I've seen where that goes in this newsgroup too many times. >> And neither do thousands of other >> respected organizations out there. > > If their views on precedence determining the order in which operations > are performed are as flawed as yours, why would any knowledgeable > programmer respect them? > Because they are not the ones who are wrong. You are. >> But your ego won't let you admit that you are wrong. > > Sure it will --- all you have to do is show that I'm wrong with > reference to the Standard that defines the language. But you can't do > that, can you? > As I said - I am not going to try to argue the standard with you. You already have proven multiple times in this newsgroup you don't understand the standard. I am not going to go there. >> You think you know >> more than all of these other organizations. > > I know more about precedence than the people who wrote the pages you cited. > Then you need to contact those people and tell them just how wrong they are. And while you're at it, you can contact thousands of other companies, universities and the like and tell them they are wrong, also. >> Sorry. You don't. > > Well, actually... > Nope. You don't. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-28 17:55 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <ehke61FmgnfU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #105016 |
On 02/28/17 05:27 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > > You are saying the Purdue University, the University of Hawaii and > Microsoft are not widely respected? ROFLMAO! How stoopid can you get? Those universities may offer a decent education (international rank 70 and 201-250), but they aren't particularly well known outside of the US. -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-28 12:23 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o94bi1$o7f$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #105028 |
On 2/27/2017 11:55 PM, Ian Collins wrote: > On 02/28/17 05:27 PM, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> >> You are saying the Purdue University, the University of Hawaii and >> Microsoft are not widely respected? ROFLMAO! How stoopid can you get? > > Those universities may offer a decent education (international rank 70 > and 201-250), but they aren't particularly well known outside of the US. > They (especially Purdue) are well known and well respected in the academic circles, world wide. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-28 05:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o930jl$cmi$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #105016 |
On 28/02/17 04:27, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 2/27/2017 9:32 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 28/02/17 00:48, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 2/27/2017 7:05 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> On 27/02/17 23:45, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> <snip> >>>> >>>>> You made the claims. >> >> (Actually you did. All I did was disagree with you.) >> >>>>> It's up to you to support >>>>> them. I supported mine with three independent and respected sources. >>>>> But you can't do the same. >>>> >>>> You might respect your sources, but I won't until such time as the >>>> errors on them have been fixed. Instead, I'll stick to what the Standard >>>> says. That you will not accept the Standard as an authority over >>>> academic and commercial interpretations of that Standard is quite >>>> ridiculous. >>> >>> Most of the programming world respects those sources. >> >> Assertions without evidence can be rejected without evidence. If you >> have some evidence to support the claim, fine, present it by all means. >> > > You are saying the Purdue University, the University of Hawaii and > Microsoft are not widely respected? ROFLMAO! How stoopid can you get? I'm saying that the sources you posted are in error about the meaning of precedence. It doesn't matter whether they're reputable, or respected, or admired, or worshipped on prayer mats. They're still *wrong* about precedence. <more of the same snipped> >>> But your ego won't let you admit that you are wrong. >> >> Sure it will --- all you have to do is show that I'm wrong with >> reference to the Standard that defines the language. But you can't do >> that, can you? >> > > As I said - I am not going to try to argue the standard with you. Well, of course you're not, because you would inevitably lose that argument. >>> You think you know >>> more than all of these other organizations. >> >> I know more about precedence than the people who wrote the pages you cited. > > Then you need to contact those people and tell them just how wrong they > are. And while you're at it, you can contact thousands of other > companies, universities and the like and tell them they are wrong, also. Well, let's try that. Obviously I don't have time to fix the whole Internet, but let's try contacting just one site. First on the list is Purdue, so we'll try that. The rest of this article is a copy of an email I have just sent to Professor Rego at Purdue. Dear Professor Rego There is an error on your Web site on the following page: <https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~cs240/misc/operators.html> The page claims that: "Operator precedence determines which operator will be performed first in a group of operators with different precedences. For instance 5 + 3 * 2 is calculated as 5 + (3 * 2), giving 11, and not as (5 + 3) * 2, giving 16." The example is correct (and correctly shows how the 3 binds to the multiplication operator), but the statement preceding it is wrong. Precedence does not dictate order of evaluation. In fact, the latest incarnation of the relevant ISO Standard, ISO/IEC 9899, hardly mentions precedence and certainly doesn't define it. The original ANSI C Standard had this to say: "Except as indicated by the syntax or otherwise specified later (for the function-call operator () , && , || , ?: , and comma operators), the order of evaluation of subexpressions and the order in which side effects take place are both unspecified." The latest incarnation of the Standard puts the same idea rather more simply: "The grouping of operators and operands is indicated by the syntax. Except as specified later, side effects and value computations of subexpressions are unsequenced." Thus, while it would be perfectly proper to speak of precedence (and associativity, for those operators that share a precedence level) as determining which operands bind to which operators, to speak of an order of evaluation is quite wrong. Your page goes on to make the same mistake about associativity: "The operator associativity rules define the order in which adjacent operators *with the same precedence level* are evaluated. For instance the expression 8 - 3 - 2 is calculated as (8 - 3) - 2, giving 3, and and not as 8 - (3 - 2), giving 7. In this case we say that subtraction is left associative meaning that the left most subtraction must be done first." Again, the example is correct, but the preceding and following statements are incorrect. In fact, the most likely outcome in a modern compiler is that the optimiser will replace 8 - 3 - 2 with the constant 3 (a process known as 'constant folding'), so that at runtime there will be *no calculation at all*, and so it is meaningless to speak of which part of that calculation is done first. The error is a common one. Herbert Schildt makes the same error in "C: The Complete Reference". So does the University of Hawaii. So, in fact, do Microsoft. Nevertheless, it /is/ an error, and it ought to be corrected. I have copied this email to comp.lang.c where there is a current discussion on operator precedence in which your University has been cited as an authority on the C language. Thank you for your attention.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-28 12:27 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o94bpj$pm5$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #105033 |
On 2/28/2017 12:09 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 28/02/17 04:27, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 2/27/2017 9:32 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 28/02/17 00:48, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 2/27/2017 7:05 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>> On 27/02/17 23:45, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>>> You made the claims. >>> >>> (Actually you did. All I did was disagree with you.) >>> >>>>>> It's up to you to support >>>>>> them. I supported mine with three independent and respected sources. >>>>>> But you can't do the same. >>>>> >>>>> You might respect your sources, but I won't until such time as the >>>>> errors on them have been fixed. Instead, I'll stick to what the >>>>> Standard >>>>> says. That you will not accept the Standard as an authority over >>>>> academic and commercial interpretations of that Standard is quite >>>>> ridiculous. >>>> >>>> Most of the programming world respects those sources. >>> >>> Assertions without evidence can be rejected without evidence. If you >>> have some evidence to support the claim, fine, present it by all means. >>> >> >> You are saying the Purdue University, the University of Hawaii and >> Microsoft are not widely respected? ROFLMAO! How stoopid can you get? > > I'm saying that the sources you posted are in error about the meaning of > precedence. It doesn't matter whether they're reputable, or respected, > or admired, or worshipped on prayer mats. They're still *wrong* about > precedence. > And you have yet to provide a link to a independent and respected site that supports your statements. All you point to is your incorrect interpretation of the C standard. I've pointed to three independent and respected organizations, all which say the same thing. And even your blessed GNU C compiler documentation says the same thing: https://www.gnu.org/software/gnu-c-manual/gnu-c-manual.html#Operator-Precedence > <more of the same snipped> > >>>> But your ego won't let you admit that you are wrong. >>> >>> Sure it will --- all you have to do is show that I'm wrong with >>> reference to the Standard that defines the language. But you can't do >>> that, can you? >>> >> >> As I said - I am not going to try to argue the standard with you. > > Well, of course you're not, because you would inevitably lose that > argument. > Nope, you claim I'm wrong. I've proven otherwise. It's up to you to come up with independent, respected documentation which agrees with you. If you are right, it should be very easy for you to do. It was quite easy for me to come up with my sources. >>>> You think you know >>>> more than all of these other organizations. >>> >>> I know more about precedence than the people who wrote the pages you >>> cited. >> >> Then you need to contact those people and tell them just how wrong they >> are. And while you're at it, you can contact thousands of other >> companies, universities and the like and tell them they are wrong, also. > > Well, let's try that. Obviously I don't have time to fix the whole > Internet, but let's try contacting just one site. First on the list is > Purdue, so we'll try that. > > The rest of this article is a copy of an email I have just sent to > Professor Rego at Purdue. > > > Dear Professor Rego > > There is an error on your Web site on the following page: > > <https://web.ics.purdue.edu/~cs240/misc/operators.html> > > The page claims that: "Operator precedence determines which operator > will be performed first in a group of operators with different > precedences. For instance 5 + 3 * 2 is calculated as 5 + (3 * 2), giving > 11, and not as (5 + 3) * 2, giving 16." > > The example is correct (and correctly shows how the 3 binds to the > multiplication operator), but the statement preceding it is wrong. > Precedence does not dictate order of evaluation. In fact, the latest > incarnation of the relevant ISO Standard, ISO/IEC 9899, hardly mentions > precedence and certainly doesn't define it. > > The original ANSI C Standard had this to say: "Except as indicated by > the syntax or otherwise specified later (for the function-call operator > () , && , || , ?: , and comma operators), the order of evaluation of > subexpressions and the order in which side effects take place are both > unspecified." > > The latest incarnation of the Standard puts the same idea rather more > simply: "The grouping of operators and operands is indicated by the > syntax. Except as specified later, side effects and value computations > of subexpressions are unsequenced." > > Thus, while it would be perfectly proper to speak of precedence (and > associativity, for those operators that share a precedence level) as > determining which operands bind to which operators, to speak of an order > of evaluation is quite wrong. > > Your page goes on to make the same mistake about associativity: "The > operator associativity rules define the order in which adjacent > operators *with the same precedence level* are evaluated. For instance > the expression 8 - 3 - 2 is calculated as (8 - 3) - 2, giving 3, and and > not as 8 - (3 - 2), giving 7. In this case we say that subtraction is > left associative meaning that the left most subtraction must be done > first." > > Again, the example is correct, but the preceding and following > statements are incorrect. In fact, the most likely outcome in a modern > compiler is that the optimiser will replace 8 - 3 - 2 with the constant > 3 (a process known as 'constant folding'), so that at runtime there will > be *no calculation at all*, and so it is meaningless to speak of which > part of that calculation is done first. > > The error is a common one. Herbert Schildt makes the same error in "C: > The Complete Reference". So does the University of Hawaii. So, in fact, > do Microsoft. Nevertheless, it /is/ an error, and it ought to be corrected. > > I have copied this email to comp.lang.c where there is a current > discussion on operator precedence in which your University has been > cited as an authority on the C language. > > Thank you for your attention. > Yes, I can hear him laughing all the way to Maryland. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jameskuyper@verizon.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-28 10:06 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <97ad8e6e-6ed3-474a-9c77-dbf3a11e3c93@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #105116 |
On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 12:27:10 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: ... > And you have yet to provide a link to a independent and respected site > that supports your statements. All you point to is your incorrect > interpretation of the C standard. > > I've pointed to three independent and respected organizations, all which > say the same thing. And even your blessed GNU C compiler documentation > says the same thing: You keep emphasizing the phrase "interpretation", as if we were disputing a matter of opinion. We aren't. We disputing a matter of fact: whether or not there exist any words in the actual standard to support the popular misconception that you share. The only evidence that's relevant to that question of fact is a citation of the precise location of the those words. All of the most competent authorities in the world are irrelevant, unless one of\ those authorities can provide the citation of relevant words from the standard that you yourself refuse to provide. Can you locate an authority that actually provides such a citation? None of the ones you've given us so far does. If you ever bothered identifying those words, then we could start discussing how you've misinterpreted them. But that's a discussion that can't even start until you've identified them. The truth, of course, is that the reason why you've never identified those words is that you have no idea where they are. That's because they aren't actually there, though I'm sure you're unwilling to admit that even to yourself. However, I suspect your failure is more fundamental than that - the real reason why you don't know where those words are, is that you never bothered looking for them, because you don't really care where they are. You've reached a conclusion about how C is defined, and all the official text in the word, from the most authoritative source, would never have any affect on your opinion. If the committee itself were to decide to officially add words to the next version of the standard saying "Jerry Stuckle is wrong about this issue.", you'd just ignore those words; you'd probably deny that they were even there, and you'd certainly never bother to check.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-28 13:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o94ell$4on$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #105123 |
On 2/28/2017 1:06 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: > On Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 12:27:10 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > ... >> And you have yet to provide a link to a independent and respected site >> that supports your statements. All you point to is your incorrect >> interpretation of the C standard. >> >> I've pointed to three independent and respected organizations, all which >> say the same thing. And even your blessed GNU C compiler documentation >> says the same thing: > > You keep emphasizing the phrase "interpretation", as if we were disputing a > matter of opinion. We aren't. We disputing a matter of fact: whether or not > there exist any words in the actual standard to support the popular > misconception that you share. The only evidence that's relevant to that > question of fact is a citation of the precise location of the those words. All > of the most competent authorities in the world are irrelevant, unless one of\ > those authorities can provide the citation of relevant words from the standard > that you yourself refuse to provide. Can you locate an authority that actually > provides such a citation? None of the ones you've given us so far does. > That is correct. You are interpretating the standard. You are looking at bits and pieces of the standard, but do not understand the standard as a whole. You interpretation of the standard is incorrect. > If you ever bothered identifying those words, then we could start discussing > how you've misinterpreted them. But that's a discussion that can't even start > until you've identified them. > > The truth, of course, is that the reason why you've never identified those > words is that you have no idea where they are. That's because they aren't > actually there, though I'm sure you're unwilling to admit that even to yourself. > > However, I suspect your failure is more fundamental than that - the real reason > why you don't know where those words are, is that you never bothered looking > for them, because you don't really care where they are. You've reached a > conclusion about how C is defined, and all the official text in the word, from > the most authoritative source, would never have any affect on your opinion. > If the committee itself were to decide to officially add words to the next > version of the standard saying "Jerry Stuckle is wrong about this issue.", > you'd just ignore those words; you'd probably deny that they were even there, > and you'd certainly never bother to check. > I have provided several sites which agree with my position. I can find thousands more which say the same thing. You have yet to provide a single site from an independent, well-respected source to support your position. So who's wrong - you or the rest of the world? I wonder. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 15 of 27 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 … 27 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web