Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #11845 > unrolled thread
| Started by | scs@eskimo.com (Steve Summit) |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-10-18 00:00 +0000 |
| Last post | 2011-10-27 00:18 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 291 — 52 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation scs@eskimo.com (Steve Summit) - 2011-10-18 00:00 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Uno <Uno@example.invalid> - 2011-10-18 05:20 -0600
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-11-11 23:51 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Dann Corbit <dcorbit@connx.com> - 2011-10-18 14:37 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-19 10:52 +1300
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "James" <no@spam.invalid> - 2011-10-18 16:47 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-19 00:02 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Bill Davy" <Bill@SynectixLtd.com> - 2011-10-19 08:57 +0100
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-19 02:13 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-10-19 13:41 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-20 00:04 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-10-19 15:32 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-10-19 09:57 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Frederick Williams <freddywilliams@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-19 20:46 +0100
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation 88888 dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-10-19 13:06 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-10-19 20:49 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2011-10-19 19:04 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2011-10-20 07:43 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Frederick Williams <freddywilliams@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-21 16:56 +0100
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "sadsailor" <overboard@the.oceans> - 2011-10-21 16:37 -0500
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-10-21 17:17 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Roberto Waltman <usenet@rwaltman.com> - 2011-10-21 13:30 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-22 07:57 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation bks@panix.com (Bradley K. Sherman) - 2011-10-22 15:51 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-10-22 18:19 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-23 08:00 +1300
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Frederick Williams <freddywilliams@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-23 15:39 +0100
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-23 05:55 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-23 21:30 +0100
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-10-23 14:27 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-23 10:28 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-23 08:36 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Charles Richmond" <netnews@aquaporin4.com> - 2011-10-23 23:21 -0500
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Charles Richmond" <netnews@aquaporin4.com> - 2011-10-23 23:21 -0500
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Charles Richmond" <netnews@aquaporin4.com> - 2011-10-23 23:23 -0500
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-10-23 12:35 -0500
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-23 14:01 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-10-23 14:34 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-10-23 13:49 -0600
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-23 18:14 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-24 01:59 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-24 06:25 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-10-24 14:43 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-24 09:01 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation André Gillibert <MetaEntropy.removeThis@gmail.com> - 2011-10-24 18:23 +0200
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-25 08:02 +1300
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-25 00:44 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-10-25 21:24 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-26 00:58 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-26 23:21 +1300
OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-10-29 06:56 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Markus Wichmann <nullplan@gmx.net> - 2011-10-29 21:18 +0200
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-30 10:43 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-31 02:26 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 08:43 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 03:11 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 08:17 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-02 06:16 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-11-28 00:23 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-27 23:57 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-28 00:20 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-11-29 23:36 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-30 12:42 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-30 10:46 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-12-01 23:20 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-02 12:39 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-12-02 00:42 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-02 13:45 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-12-02 00:57 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-12-02 08:49 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) - 2011-12-02 17:45 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-11-30 21:42 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-11-30 22:59 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C Quentin Pope <qp19433@hotmail.NOSPAM.com> - 2011-11-30 22:09 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-01 11:20 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-12-01 00:21 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-01 01:22 -0800
Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2011-12-01 10:18 +0000
Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-01 04:57 -0800
Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2011-12-02 08:34 +0000
Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-12-01 13:38 +0000
Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-12-01 13:47 -0800
Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> - 2011-12-02 08:10 +0000
Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-12-02 17:48 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-30 18:35 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-12-01 02:53 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-12-01 07:07 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-12-04 00:35 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-12-03 18:28 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-11-30 14:10 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-12-01 00:15 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-01 12:21 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-12-01 00:29 +0100
Operator overloading extensions (Was re: OOP and C++ and C) "Joel C. Salomon" <joelcsalomon@gmail.com> - 2011-12-01 15:50 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-12-01 07:38 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-01 20:26 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-30 18:37 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-12-01 02:05 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-12-01 07:09 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C Markus Wichmann <nullplan@gmx.net> - 2011-11-01 10:13 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 23:02 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-01 04:04 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 08:45 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-01 09:25 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 09:30 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-01 12:59 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 10:30 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-01 14:33 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 13:10 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-01 16:37 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 13:44 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-01 21:03 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-01 16:26 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-11-03 02:38 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 22:53 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-03 16:03 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-30 01:07 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-30 21:22 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-30 04:41 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-30 08:40 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-30 10:56 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-31 03:03 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-31 02:59 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-30 07:56 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-30 08:13 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-30 18:05 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-30 11:38 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-31 07:56 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 01:11 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-31 21:34 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 08:36 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 07:37 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-31 06:55 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 06:08 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-31 10:42 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 07:56 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-31 12:54 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 07:47 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-30 19:46 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 01:49 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-31 15:15 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 09:01 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-31 18:04 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 11:56 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-01 03:03 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 09:18 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 09:39 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 09:54 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 10:11 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-01 03:22 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 23:08 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 09:04 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 09:26 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 09:37 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-31 10:01 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 07:59 +1300
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 09:52 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 17:25 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-01 21:44 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 07:07 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-30 08:33 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-30 18:00 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-31 03:20 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-10-31 20:07 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 13:48 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-31 22:18 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-01 03:59 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-31 22:52 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-01 04:27 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-01 18:56 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 12:59 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-01 16:46 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-01 14:16 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-01 21:35 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 08:22 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-02 10:14 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 12:09 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) jameskuyper <jameskuyper@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 13:11 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 15:01 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-02 22:11 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 15:32 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-02 21:31 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-03 07:41 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Uncle Steve <stevet810@gmail.com> - 2011-11-02 19:58 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2011-11-02 21:45 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-02 14:26 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-02 11:07 -0400
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-03 12:51 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-03 06:36 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-03 14:34 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-03 08:41 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-04 03:30 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-04 09:03 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-04 09:24 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-04 09:44 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-09 00:06 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-09 00:03 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-09 10:57 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-10 09:13 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-10 11:05 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-10 13:23 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-10 14:47 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-11-11 00:17 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-11 09:29 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-11 18:05 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-11-11 18:19 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-11 13:28 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-11-11 18:37 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-11-11 14:13 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-11 11:17 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-11 21:49 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) John Gordon <gordon@panix.com> - 2011-11-11 22:11 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-11 14:19 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-12 02:50 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-12 01:44 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-12 17:54 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-12 11:38 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-11-14 02:36 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-14 16:01 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 10:40 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-14 18:36 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 11:51 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 12:08 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-14 20:25 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 13:11 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-14 21:46 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 14:56 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-14 23:01 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 15:50 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-15 02:48 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-15 08:52 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-11-14 20:15 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-15 02:48 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 14:17 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-14 22:38 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-11-14 14:45 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 15:21 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-11-14 23:40 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 15:59 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-11-14 12:16 -0600
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-11-14 18:25 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-11 14:15 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-11 23:53 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-11 16:16 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-11 19:53 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-11 12:02 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-14 02:05 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-14 08:36 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-11-10 17:00 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-11 04:53 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-11 09:27 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-12 04:27 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-10 23:00 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-11-10 15:10 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-11-11 03:30 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-11-11 00:41 -0800
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-11-12 05:14 +0000
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2011-11-21 02:39 -0500
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) nroberts <roberts.noah@gmail.com> - 2011-10-30 11:00 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-10-30 19:09 +0100
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-30 11:51 -0700
Re: OOP and C++ and C (was Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation) Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-30 20:36 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-10-24 12:16 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-10-25 20:30 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-10-24 15:52 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-10-24 21:40 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201110.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-10-26 06:13 +0200
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-26 01:34 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Bill Cunningham" <nospam@nspam.invalid> - 2011-10-26 09:47 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-201110.rodent.frell.theremailer.net> - 2011-10-27 04:54 +0200
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation luser- -droog <mijoryx@yahoo.com> - 2011-10-27 11:27 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation AK <anoopkammaran@gmail.com> - 2011-10-20 00:01 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2011-10-20 07:50 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Walter Banks <walter@bytecraft.com> - 2011-10-20 11:07 -0400
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2011-10-20 16:31 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-10-20 11:13 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-10-20 11:43 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-10-21 08:35 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-21 02:45 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation André Gillibert <MetaEntropy.removeThis@gmail.com> - 2011-10-24 18:41 +0200
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-10-25 14:06 +0000
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-10-25 10:13 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Charles Richmond" <netnews@aquaporin4.com> - 2011-10-20 21:58 -0500
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "Charles Richmond" <netnews@aquaporin4.com> - 2011-10-20 21:52 -0500
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation "io_x" <a@b.c.invalid> - 2011-10-23 10:32 +0200
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-23 05:58 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation lovecreatesbeauty <lovecreatesbeauty@gmail.com> - 2011-10-20 07:40 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-10-25 10:19 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-26 01:53 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation 88888 Dihedral <dihedral88888@googlemail.com> - 2011-10-26 14:40 -0700
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- An Appreciation Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-10-27 00:18 -0700
Page 4 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 15 Next page →
| From | Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-28 00:20 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <0b7ed530-acf2-4d5f-b9d9-fe7d26e71e45@i6g2000vbe.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #13987 |
On Nov 28, 12:23 am, j...@panix.com (Joe keane) wrote: > In article <a54cafb3-f5ec-4254-81cb-3adf75b40...@o19g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>, > Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote: could you leave a sensible amount of context in? Yoe are replying to somethign I wrote nearly a month ago!! The discussion was about C++ operating overload. [extra indentation added to show context of my use of "string concatenation"] >>> If that's the only example [of C++ operating overload] that >>> you've seen though then you're obviously not looking at a lot of C++. >> >> give some examples then. Arthmatic types need them but what else? >> string concatentaion. And? you'lll note here that I was asking for examples of overloaded operators. > >string concatenation? > > I started with BASIC so, yeah, but if the C answer is 'call 'strcat'' > i think that is the end of the story. you could safely concatentate strings in C++ without using an overloaded oeprator. With a more sophisticated string type you could do teh same in C. What exactly is your point?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-29 23:36 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <jb3q9a$jvl$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #14000 |
In article <0b7ed530-acf2-4d5f-b9d9-fe7d26e71e45@i6g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote: >you could safely concatentate strings in C++ without using an >overloaded oeprator. kind of my point >With a more sophisticated string type you could do [the] same in C. Of course, everyone has his own library to do this. >What exactly is your point? I think operator overloading is a gain of about zero. I've never written in C and been like 'darn it, if i only had operator overloading!'. Even in C++ i use it sparingly, unless someone tells me 'add some operators cause the customer will think they're nifty'. C++ has: classes derivation ctor/dtor concept & exception handling templates & STL These things, if they're done right, can make an F-15 (or if they're not done right, can get you blow up by an F-15). The opereator overloading is a candy bar.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-30 12:42 +1300 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <9jl8v3F4d0U35@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #14055 |
On 11/30/11 12:36 PM, Joe keane wrote: > Nick Keighley<nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> What exactly is your point? > > I think operator overloading is a gain of about zero. Until you you have to implement a specialised numeric type or a smart pointer. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-30 10:46 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <jb4u12$3u9$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #14056 |
Le 30/11/11 00:42, Ian Collins a écrit : > On 11/30/11 12:36 PM, Joe keane wrote: >> Nick Keighley<nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> What exactly is your point? >> >> I think operator overloading is a gain of about zero. > > Until you you have to implement a specialised numeric type or a smart > pointer. > In general operator overloading is useful for numbers and arrays. 1) For numbers, it allows the user to create any kind of new numerical types and keep most of his software. lcc-win has used this feature extensively in the context of an extension to the C language. It allwos to have several extended precision numbers like qfloat (350 or 450 bits) bignums, and complex numbers. 2) For arrays it allwos to implement length delimited strings using the natural array syntax: String s = "abc"; // overloaded assignment operator s[2] = 'C'; // overloaded index operator This simplifies porting from normal C strings to the new type of strings. Flames >/dev/null
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-01 23:20 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <jb9246$a66$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #14056 |
In article <9jl8v3F4d0U35@mid.individual.net>,
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Until you you have to implement a specialised numeric type or a smart
>pointer.
I have done so several times in C, and i chose not to use overloading.
Of course i like to write in C, then make a C++ wrapper:
extern "C"
{
int qz_add(struct qz *x, struct qz *y, struct qz *res);
int qz_addw(struct qz *x, struct qz *y, struct qz *res, int w);
int qz_mul(struct qz *x, struct qz *y, struct qz *res);
...
}
class Qz
{
struct qz p;
inline int add(Qz& x, Qz& y)
{ return qz_add(&x.p, &y.p, &this->p); }
inline int addw(Qz& x, Qz& y, int w)
{ return qz_addw(&x.p, &y.p, &this->p, w); }
inline int mul(Qz& x, Qz& y);
{ return qz_mul(&x.p, &y.p, &this->p); }
...
[inline Qz operator +(Qz& x, Qz& y)
{ Qz tmp; (void) tmp.add(x, y); return tmp; }
[inline Qz operator +()(Qz& x, Qz& y, int w)
{ Qz tmp; (void) tmp.addw(x, y, w); return tmp; }
inline Qz operator *(Qz& x, Qz& y)
{ Qz tmp; (void) tmp.mul(x, y); return tmp; }]
...
};
[throw in some 'const']
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-02 12:39 +1300 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <9jqhi7F4d0U43@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #14199 |
On 12/ 2/11 12:20 PM, Joe keane wrote:
> In article<9jl8v3F4d0U35@mid.individual.net>,
> Ian Collins<ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Until you you have to implement a specialised numeric type or a smart
>> pointer.
>
> I have done so several times in C, and i chose not to use overloading.
You didn't have a choice.
> Of course i like to write in C, then make a C++ wrapper:
How odd.
> extern "C"
> {
> int qz_add(struct qz *x, struct qz *y, struct qz *res);
> int qz_addw(struct qz *x, struct qz *y, struct qz *res, int w);
> int qz_mul(struct qz *x, struct qz *y, struct qz *res);
> ...
> }
>
> class Qz
> {
> struct qz p;
>
> inline int add(Qz& x, Qz& y)
> { return qz_add(&x.p,&y.p,&this->p); }
> inline int addw(Qz& x, Qz& y, int w)
> { return qz_addw(&x.p,&y.p,&this->p, w); }
> inline int mul(Qz& x, Qz& y);
> { return qz_mul(&x.p,&y.p,&this->p); }
> ...
>
> [inline Qz operator +(Qz& x, Qz& y)
So you avoided operator overloading by using it?
> { Qz tmp; (void) tmp.add(x, y); return tmp; }
> [inline Qz operator +()(Qz& x, Qz& y, int w)
> { Qz tmp; (void) tmp.addw(x, y, w); return tmp; }
> inline Qz operator *(Qz& x, Qz& y)
> { Qz tmp; (void) tmp.mul(x, y); return tmp; }]
> ...
> };
>
> [throw in some 'const']
I hope you C is better than your C++.
--
Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-02 00:42 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <20111201163853.339@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #14200 |
On 2011-12-01, Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 12/ 2/11 12:20 PM, Joe keane wrote: >> In article<9jl8v3F4d0U35@mid.individual.net>, >> Ian Collins<ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> Until you you have to implement a specialised numeric type or a smart >>> pointer. >> >> I have done so several times in C, and i chose not to use overloading. > > You didn't have a choice. > >> Of course i like to write in C, then make a C++ wrapper: > > How odd. Not really. Keeping the base API in C means that these functions can be used from C programs, and also are easier to use from other languages.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-02 13:45 +1300 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <9jqldmF4d0U44@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #14202 |
On 12/ 2/11 01:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: > On 2011-12-01, Ian Collins<ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: >> On 12/ 2/11 12:20 PM, Joe keane wrote: >>> In article<9jl8v3F4d0U35@mid.individual.net>, >>> Ian Collins<ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> Until you you have to implement a specialised numeric type or a smart >>>> pointer. >>> >>> I have done so several times in C, and i chose not to use overloading. >> >> You didn't have a choice. >> >>> Of course i like to write in C, then make a C++ wrapper: >> >> How odd. > > Not really. Keeping the base API in C means that these functions can be used > from C programs, and also are easier to use from other languages. They can be declared as C, but still written in C++. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-02 00:57 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <20111201165607.573@kylheku.com> |
| In reply to | #14203 |
On 2011-12-02, Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 12/ 2/11 01:42 PM, Kaz Kylheku wrote: >> On 2011-12-01, Ian Collins<ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: >>> On 12/ 2/11 12:20 PM, Joe keane wrote: >>>> In article<9jl8v3F4d0U35@mid.individual.net>, >>>> Ian Collins<ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Until you you have to implement a specialised numeric type or a smart >>>>> pointer. >>>> >>>> I have done so several times in C, and i chose not to use overloading. >>> >>> You didn't have a choice. >>> >>>> Of course i like to write in C, then make a C++ wrapper: >>> >>> How odd. >> >> Not really. Keeping the base API in C means that these functions can be used >> from C programs, and also are easier to use from other languages. > > They can be declared as C, but still written in C++. Then people need a C++ compiler to build it, and also typically drags in dependencies on C++ libraries (unless special steps are taken to scrub those out).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-02 08:49 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <jb9vu2$l5s$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #14199 |
Le 02/12/11 00:20, Joe keane a écrit :
I think operator overloading is a gain of about zero.
But then.... he proposes using operator overloading and
wrotes this code:
> ...
>
> [inline Qz operator +(Qz& x, Qz& y)
> { Qz tmp; (void) tmp.add(x, y); return tmp; }
> [inline Qz operator +()(Qz& x, Qz& y, int w)
> { Qz tmp; (void) tmp.addw(x, y, w); return tmp; }
> inline Qz operator *(Qz& x, Qz& y)
> { Qz tmp; (void) tmp.mul(x, y); return tmp; }]
> ...
> };
>
Why is he against operator overloading in C?
This is kind of completely schizophrenic.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jgk@panix.com (Joe keane) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-02 17:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <jbb2r9$ti$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #14214 |
In article <jb9vu2$l5s$1@speranza.aioe.org>, jacob navia <jacob@jspamsink.org> wrote: >Why is he against operator overloading in C? I'm not -against- it. I am more 'eh'. But if you can do just fine without it, why would it be so important to add it to the language? Especially C? >But then.... he proposes using operator overloading and >wrotes this code: Right and i put it in brackets meaning you can include it or not according to taste. Note that first we define normal methods. Then the operators are inlines in terms of those. If we include this it's still up to the calling function which form to use (oh and it should be obvious how to switch between the two forms, otherwise you screwed up). You can use the operator, or not, your choice.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-30 21:42 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <slrnjdd8pf.1bk.grahn+nntp@frailea.sa.invalid> |
| In reply to | #14055 |
On Tue, 2011-11-29, Joe keane wrote: ... > I think operator overloading is a gain of about zero. > > I've never written in C and been like 'darn it, if i only had operator > overloading!'. Operator overloading ties in with many of the other C++ features -- I don't think it would be very useful as an isolated feature. /Jorgen -- // Jorgen Grahn <grahn@ Oo o. . . \X/ snipabacken.se> O o .
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-30 22:59 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <jb6907$jl9$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #14096 |
Le 30/11/11 22:42, Jorgen Grahn a écrit : > On Tue, 2011-11-29, Joe keane wrote: > ... >> I think operator overloading is a gain of about zero. >> >> I've never written in C and been like 'darn it, if i only had operator >> overloading!'. > > Operator overloading ties in with many of the other C++ features -- I > don't think it would be very useful as an isolated feature. > > /Jorgen > That is because you did not know that Fortran has operator oerloading, C#, even Java. I have added operatr overloading to the lcc-win compiler and it is very useful. See the other message about this in this thread.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Quentin Pope <qp19433@hotmail.NOSPAM.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-11-30 22:09 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <jb69ir$kem$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #14098 |
On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 22:59:39 +0100, jacob navia wrote: > Le 30/11/11 22:42, Jorgen Grahn a écrit : >> On Tue, 2011-11-29, Joe keane wrote: >> ... >>> I think operator overloading is a gain of about zero. >>> >>> I've never written in C and been like 'darn it, if i only had operator >>> overloading!'. >> >> Operator overloading ties in with many of the other C++ features -- I >> don't think it would be very useful as an isolated feature. >> >> /Jorgen >> >> > That is because you did not know that Fortran has operator oerloading, > C#, even Java. I have added operatr overloading to the lcc-win compiler > and it is very useful. See the other message about this in this thread. Sorry, but it is NOT useful. In those other languages, it is a curse. It leads to many bugs, and plenty of confusing code where it is difficult to tell what a simple-looking line of code is actually doing without digging through piles of other code to track down the relevant overloading. Overloading is not the C way. It is not standard C and not portable. C has a much better solution - explicit function calls. Look at GMP for a good example of a C interface for numerical types without any need for overloading. /* QP */
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-01 11:20 +1300 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <9jnogrF4d0U37@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #14100 |
On 12/ 1/11 11:09 AM, Quentin Pope wrote: > On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 22:59:39 +0100, jacob navia wrote: >> Le 30/11/11 22:42, Jorgen Grahn a écrit : >>> On Tue, 2011-11-29, Joe keane wrote: >>> ... >>>> I think operator overloading is a gain of about zero. >>>> >>>> I've never written in C and been like 'darn it, if i only had operator >>>> overloading!'. >>> >>> Operator overloading ties in with many of the other C++ features -- I >>> don't think it would be very useful as an isolated feature. >>> >>> /Jorgen >>> >>> >> That is because you did not know that Fortran has operator oerloading, >> C#, even Java. I have added operatr overloading to the lcc-win compiler >> and it is very useful. See the other message about this in this thread. > > Sorry, but it is NOT useful. In those other languages, it is a curse. It > leads to many bugs, and plenty of confusing code where it is difficult to > tell what a simple-looking line of code is actually doing without digging > through piles of other code to track down the relevant overloading. That statement could be make about just about any language feature! If you want a counter augment, look at all the baggage that had to be added to C to support complex numbers. > Overloading is not the C way. It is not standard C and not portable. That I agree with. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-01 00:21 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <jb6dpr$vcj$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #14100 |
Le 30/11/11 23:09, Quentin Pope a écrit : > On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 22:59:39 +0100, jacob navia wrote: >> Le 30/11/11 22:42, Jorgen Grahn a écrit : >>> On Tue, 2011-11-29, Joe keane wrote: >>> ... >>>> I think operator overloading is a gain of about zero. >>>> >>>> I've never written in C and been like 'darn it, if i only had operator >>>> overloading!'. >>> >>> Operator overloading ties in with many of the other C++ features -- I >>> don't think it would be very useful as an isolated feature. >>> >>> /Jorgen >>> >>> >> That is because you did not know that Fortran has operator oerloading, >> C#, even Java. I have added operatr overloading to the lcc-win compiler >> and it is very useful. See the other message about this in this thread. > > Sorry, but it is NOT useful. In those other languages, it is a curse. It > leads to many bugs, and plenty of confusing code where it is difficult to > tell what a simple-looking line of code is actually doing without digging > through piles of other code to track down the relevant overloading. > Operator overloading work best with number and numerical data. Please consider: z = (a+b-1)/(b*(b-a)); or z = div(subtract(sum(a,b),1),mult(b,subtract(b,a)))) Which you prefer? This is so OBVIOUS that the people arguing against it look completely ridiculous. > Overloading is not the C way. It is not standard C and not portable. > This isn't a reason, an argument or whatever. It is just "That's the way it is". And when somebody asks: but WHY should we go on like that? you answer "That's the way it is". > C has a much better solution - explicit function calls. Yes, see above: z = div(subtract(sum(a,b),1),mult(b,subtract(b,a)))) and I assumed that the result is returned in the stack... what is a horror with bignumbers... Otherwise you have: tmp1 = sum(a,b); tmp1 = subtract(tmp1,1); tmp2 = subtract(b,a); tmp2 = mult(b,tmp2); z = div(tmp1,tmp2); Even better! > Look at GMP for a > good example of a C interface for numerical types without any need for > overloading. > Of course, it is alwayssupposed that the real users will use the overloaded ibterface that calls back to C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-01 01:22 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: OOP and C++ and C |
| Message-ID | <56e7b8df-ea4b-4082-b5f1-a772911b5ee7@h42g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #14108 |
On Nov 30, 11:21 pm, jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> wrote: > Le 30/11/11 23:09, Quentin Pope a écrit : > > On Wed, 30 Nov 2011 22:59:39 +0100, jacob navia wrote: > >> Le 30/11/11 22:42, Jorgen Grahn a écrit : > >>> On Tue, 2011-11-29, Joe keane wrote: > >>>> I think operator overloading is a gain of about zero. > > >>>> I've never written in C and been like 'darn it, if i only had operator > >>>> overloading!'. read up on "blub" or the The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis > >>> Operator overloading ties in with many of the other C++ features -- I > >>> don't think it would be very useful as an isolated feature. I think Jacob has demonstrated you can do useful things with operator overloading in a C-like language > >> That is because you did not know that Fortran has operator oerloading, > >> C#, even Java. I have added operatr overloading to the lcc-win compiler > >> and it is very useful. See the other message about this in this thread. > > > Sorry, but it is NOT useful. In those other languages, it is a curse. It > > leads to many bugs, and plenty of confusing code where it is difficult to > > tell what a simple-looking line of code is actually doing without digging > > through piles of other code to track down the relevant overloading. I keep on hearing this. But if you confine it to arithmetic types it seems pretty useful. Lots of programming lanaguage features can be abused. Perhaps C should stop using pointers? > Operator overloading work best with number and numerical data. > > Please consider: > > z = (a+b-1)/(b*(b-a)); > > or > > z = div(subtract(sum(a,b),1),mult(b,subtract(b,a)))) > > Which you prefer? the LISP people would say the second one was more consistent but would be even better in proper prefix notation... (set! z (/ (- (+ a b) 1) (* b (- b a)))) but of course /they/ are crazy... <snip>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-01 10:18 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming |
| Message-ID | <jb7k96$67$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #14138 |
Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote: > > read up on "blub" or the The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis Very interesting. I've been aware of Sapir-Whorf for a long time regarding linguistics, but hadn't been aware of its interpretation with respect to programming languages. Googling blub and sapir-whorf, and then reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity brings the following question to mind: Doesn't Church's thesis and Turing completeness kind of take the steam out of any "linguistic relativity" idea applied to programming languages? At best, there's maybe some "stylistic relativity", depending on how you prefer designing/writing code. But regarding what's computable, and what computable functions a given language can express, that's pretty much a done deal. No??? -- John Forkosh ( mailto: j@f.com where j=john and f=forkosh )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-01 04:57 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming |
| Message-ID | <f0e6cffc-35aa-4069-ae2d-48dc8c10a521@w1g2000vba.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #14142 |
On Dec 1, 10:18 am, JohnF <j...@please.see.sig.for.email.com> wrote: > Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > read up on "blub" or the The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis > > Very interesting. I've been aware of Sapir-Whorf for > a long time regarding linguistics, but hadn't been > aware of its interpretation with respect to programming > languages. my own application. Though doubtless plenty of other people thought of it first. I think there's a good reason SW is still a hypothesis; that is that not all linguists believe it. People seem to be pretty flexible at stretching their language to cover new situtations. > Googling blub and sapir-whorf, and then reading > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity > brings the following question to mind: > Doesn't Church's thesis and Turing completeness > kind of take the steam out of any "linguistic relativity" > idea applied to programming languages? At best, there's > maybe some "stylistic relativity", depending on how you > prefer designing/writing code. But regarding what's > computable, and what computable functions a given language > can express, that's pretty much a done deal. No??? yes you can compute anything in any reasonable programming language (all well known programmign languages are "reasonable" from this point of view), but the set of computations that can be computed easily and conventiently is much smaller. I /could/ write a Lisp compiler in COBOL but I suspect I wouldn't enjoy it. If I'm using an old dialect of Basic I won't automatically think of recursion as a way to solve a problem. I'm deliberatly learning languages outside the imperitive/OO camp. It / does/ change the way you look at things.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | JohnF <john@please.see.sig.for.email.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-12-02 08:34 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis and programming |
| Message-ID | <jba2j6$c6q$1@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #14155 |
Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> wrote: > JohnF <j@please.see.sig.for.email.com> wrote: >> Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > read up on "blub" or the The Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis >> >> Very interesting. I've been aware of Sapir-Whorf for >> a long time regarding linguistics, but hadn't been >> aware of its interpretation with respect to programming >> languages. > > my own application. Though doubtless plenty of other people thought of > it first. I think there's a good reason SW is still a hypothesis; that > is that not all linguists believe it. People seem to be pretty > flexible at stretching their language to cover new situtations. > >> Googling blub and sapir-whorf, and then reading >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_relativity >> brings the following question to mind: >> Doesn't Church's thesis and Turing completeness >> kind of take the steam out of any "linguistic relativity" >> idea applied to programming languages? At best, there's >> maybe some "stylistic relativity", depending on how you >> prefer designing/writing code. But regarding what's >> computable, and what computable functions a given language >> can express, that's pretty much a done deal. No??? > > yes you can compute anything in any reasonable programming language > (all well known programmign languages are "reasonable" from this point > of view), but the set of computations that can be computed easily and > conventiently is much smaller. Sure, even postscript is Turing complete (my favorite example being http://pcal.sourceforge.net/ that does all its calendar calculations, including moon phases, right in the postscript sent to the printer). But, see my followup to Willem, convenience/practicality just isn't the issue. > I /could/ write a Lisp compiler in COBOL but I suspect I wouldn't > enjoy it. > > If I'm using an old dialect of Basic I won't automatically think of > recursion as a way to solve a problem. > > I'm deliberatly learning languages outside the imperitive/OO camp. It / > does/ change the way you look at things. Yeah, that's true, that a Turing complete language without some features will condition your mind to solve problems without those features. And that can be a great practical disadvantage. But the class of problems (e.g., writing a Lisp compiler in Cobol, or using iteration rather than recursion in old Basic) you'll deem solvable is the same. That is, your >>thinking<< about what algorithms you can program will be the same, as long as you're ingenious enough to express those algorithms in an inconvenient language. But any "thought" -- any program that can be written -- is still expressible in that language, even if inconveniently. Sapir-Whorf, vis-a-vis natural language, suggests some languages don't have words/phrases for certain concepts, and then people speaking those languages never think those thoughts. For programming languages, the semantics -- the class of all possible "thoughts" -- is the computable functions, and every Turing complete language has the "words" to express them all, even if clumsily. -- John Forkosh ( mailto: j@f.com where j=john and f=forkosh )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web