Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #94683 > unrolled thread
| Started by | MehdiAmini <atorrses@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-10 15:51 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-10-10 15:11 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 183 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
C Programming Tutorial on Youtube MehdiAmini <atorrses@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 15:51 +0000
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-10 17:14 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2016-10-10 13:25 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 11:06 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-10 22:18 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-10 16:29 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-11 00:07 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-11 08:36 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 09:51 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-11 07:09 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 09:48 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-11 10:10 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 11:54 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-11 08:13 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-11 07:49 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-11 12:28 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-11 09:51 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-11 21:02 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-10-13 14:48 +0200
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-13 10:20 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-15 12:18 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-15 16:47 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-15 14:31 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-15 15:21 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-15 22:47 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-16 05:19 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 08:37 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-16 17:59 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 15:48 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 00:27 +0300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-16 17:42 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-10-17 10:23 +0300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 09:07 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 18:28 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-17 10:08 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 17:51 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-10-18 13:29 +0300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-10-18 13:24 +0300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-16 13:29 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-16 18:36 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 11:39 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 15:54 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-16 15:38 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-16 23:53 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 19:40 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-17 06:31 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 09:09 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-17 14:16 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 19:40 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-16 19:23 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 22:33 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-10-16 20:09 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 09:13 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-10-17 10:58 +0200
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 09:14 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-17 07:44 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-17 13:22 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 17:55 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 09:22 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-17 08:32 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 17:21 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-17 16:07 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 21:00 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 21:49 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-18 10:45 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-10-17 10:55 +0200
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anand Hariharan <mailto.anand.hariharan@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 16:01 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-17 19:29 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-18 00:33 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-18 08:41 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-18 01:54 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-18 08:28 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 10:05 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-11 11:12 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 11:52 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 12:18 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-11 22:15 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 14:40 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-11 23:45 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 18:08 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-11 18:41 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 18:55 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-10-14 22:09 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-15 10:51 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-15 19:11 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-15 21:14 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-15 22:33 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-15 23:13 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-15 15:34 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-16 00:37 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-16 01:00 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-17 17:48 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-17 20:09 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-15 23:55 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-15 16:19 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-16 00:55 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-16 01:11 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-16 22:17 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-16 23:11 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-10-16 19:55 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-17 01:12 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-17 01:56 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-17 14:27 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-16 04:55 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-16 11:49 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-15 14:55 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-15 12:47 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-15 11:02 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-15 12:12 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-10-15 14:56 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-17 05:27 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-17 08:41 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-17 10:18 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-17 11:34 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-18 08:05 +1300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-17 12:39 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 21:17 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-10-17 22:46 +0200
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-10-18 14:06 +0300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-18 12:18 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-10-20 15:09 +0300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-20 14:29 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-10-23 13:15 +0000
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 16:17 +0300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-07 11:21 -0800
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-10-18 13:59 +0200
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-18 14:32 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 06:57 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-12 10:25 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 13:14 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-12 16:44 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 16:53 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-12 18:37 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 18:50 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-12 19:41 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 20:18 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-12 12:56 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-12 21:04 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-12 14:18 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-12 15:12 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-13 01:49 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-13 09:55 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-13 02:09 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-13 10:35 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-13 08:23 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 18:49 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 10:52 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-12 12:06 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-12 19:41 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-13 01:59 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-13 10:34 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-13 13:08 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-13 05:22 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-13 13:29 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-13 08:31 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-13 08:31 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 18:57 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-13 19:26 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-13 08:27 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-10-15 15:09 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 16:45 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-16 16:51 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-13 12:04 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-13 13:17 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-13 14:17 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-13 20:14 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-13 22:00 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-10-12 08:14 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-12 05:28 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 13:30 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 13:59 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-12 08:47 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 05:29 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-12 08:31 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-11 18:29 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 06:55 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 17:54 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 18:09 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-12 13:46 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 18:54 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 13:46 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-10 18:01 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-10 15:11 -0700
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 17:21 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nu3fbr$kab$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #94991 |
On 10/17/2016 11:32 AM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 9:23:59 AM UTC-4, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 10/17/2016 7:44 AM, James Kuyper wrote: > ... >>> If there is a public source for the names of the C committee members, >>> publication of that source would give you implied permission to use that >>> information. >>> >> >> Wrong answer. Only explicit permission from the source would give me >> that permission. Learn about copyright law (which you also seem to know >> nothing about). > > I don't claim to have any special expertise in copyright law, but surely right- > to-privacy law would be more relevant? I wouldn't expect a web page containing > a list of the committee's members to be copyrighted - most of their other web > pages that I've checked weren't. But even if it were, mentioning that one > particular person is a committee member would be covered by the "fair use" > exception. > Then you need to bone up on copyright law. Web pages are copyrighted by default, upon their creation. And you weren't asking for the name of one person - although I still wouldn't give it without that person's permission, out of respect for their privacy. >> But then you were never able to find a public source, were you? > > No, please try to read for comprehension. As I said before, I did find a public > source. The URL for that source ceased working many years ago, and I've never > found one since then, but did find one once. > So your claim about a public page is pure shite, as usual. > ... >> That was my opinion. But then I don't waste time trying to search for >> things which don't exist. Unlike you. > > I'll make it easy for you. While Larry Jones is not one of the people that I've > had the most conversations with, he is the one I'm most certain was on the > committee - he was the secretary of the committee, so I'll use him as an > example. > > Here's a couple of links: the first is all four threads that Google is aware of > that contain at least one message posted by Larry Jones to comp.lang.c which > mentions my name: > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.lang.c/kuyper$20AND$20authorname$3A%22Larry$20Jones%22%7Csort:relevance> > > This is all 13 threads that Google is aware of which contain at least one > message posted by me to comp.lang.c mentioning Larry's Name: > > <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/comp.lang.c/authorname$3Akuyper$20%22Larry$20Jones%22%7Csort:relevance> > > Larry hasn't posted for quite a while, so many of those messages are me talking > about him, rather than responding to him. However, the thread titled "int32_t", > for example, is one in which I was directly responding to Larry. That same > thread includes conversations between me and Doug Gwyn, and Clive Feather. > Yup, he was posting in a public group, as many Committee members used to do. Just because you are one of thousands (or more) people who have "communicated" with Committee members over the years in public forums and newsgroups doesn't make you special. But your name dropping makes you look like an even bigger fool. > If you're too afraid of being proven wrong to even click on those links, > there's not much point in pretending that the reason is that you just can't be > bothered. Keep in mind that anyone else reading this message can click those > links too, and as soon as they do they'll know you were mistaken about me > having no contact with any committee member. So you'll suffer the embarrassment > of being publicly proven wrong whether or not you click. > It means nothing. Thousands (or more) people have communicated with the Committee members in public forums and newsgroups over the years. Your name dropping makes you look like an even bigger fool. > Change "comp.lang.c" to "comp.std.c", to get messages posted to that newsgroup. > Change "Larry Jones" to any of the other names I gave to check them out, as > well. > > Note: those links are manifestly safe - the full text of those links are > visible, and if you're at all familiar with Google Groups you should be able to > figure out precisely what they do - so don't claim to be worried that I might > be pointing you at a malware link. > I don't need to worry about you pointing me towards a malware link. You aren't that smart to find one. Plus I have good protection on my system. > ... >> Oh, you "sent at least one message". Gee, one time I sent a message to >> President Obama, too. And I got an answer! President Obama is my >> friend! ROFLMAO! > > I was merely explaining to you precisely how I conducted my search. Many of the people on that list are people with whom I have exchanged much more than one message. > > But even a single message exchange would be sufficient to disprove your claim that I've never talked with any committee members. That's part of the problem with absolutes like "never" - they're so trivial to disprove. > Hey, I've communicated with President Obama. And I even got a response - by email, yet! Talk about personal! ROFLMAO! >>> I'm not expecting you to recognize as valid my claim that they agreed >>> with me on most of the premises of my arguments - you're not capable of >>> reading such text in a way that contradicts your preconceptions, >>> regardless of what it actually says. However, that I actually had >>> conversations with them is a simple matter of fact, trivial to check, >>> and it is a fact that you didn't bother checking before spouting off. >>> Embarrassing mistake on your part. >>> >> >> What was your claim - that 2 + 2 equals 4? No, that was probably too >> hard for you, too. > > Surprise me - dare to respond to one of my arguments with a detailed identification of the points in the argument that you consider wrong, and not just an insult to my intelligence or a blanket rejection of the entire argument. I don't expect you to do so, you'll just give another excuse for not responding. However, in the unlikely case that you do provide such a counter-argument, I'm pretty sure I can identify messages I exchanged with C committee members implying agreement with at least one of those points. I wouldn't be surprised if you responded by saying that everything I said was wrong, which would make it trivial - I said a lot of things that are completely non-controversial - so I would not recommend taking that approach. > No, because you can't read, anyway. I never said NONE of your arguments were non-controversial. But I DID say you have promoted some absurd arguments. A big difference - but one I know is too hard for your limited intellect to understand. > ... >> Your list isn't even beginning to be accurate. And I never said every >> single name from the additional list was wrong > > You said that I've never talked with any member of the committee. That would require that every person on my list that was marked with an '*' was not a committee member. Since nearly half of those people were so marked, it's statistically unlikely that all of the marked ones would be non-committee members, unless the fraction of all those names which are committee members is very small. That's extremely implausible, given the way that I put together that list. It's far more plausible that you have no idea what you're talking about. > No, you haven't. All you did was communicate in a public forum with them. Not the same at all. >> - just that you have no clue. ... > > Clues are precisely what I did have: the names of people who submitted defect reports. Those weren't proof, but they are clues. > Just as I said. You have no clue. > ... >> You seldom make suggestions to changes to the standard which are realistic. > > True - but only because I seldom make suggestions for changes, period. > That's good - because some of the things you have claimed are valid in this newsgroup are so absurd they are beyond comprehension by anyone with the intelligence of a pet rock. >> ROFLMAO! The ideas you've talked about here are not the same ones >> you've discussed with the Committee members - if you ever did, which I >> doubt. > > Check before making claims like that. > Yes, you're one of thousands (or more) who have communicated with Committee members in public forums or newsgroups. Not the same as you claimed, at all. >> ROFLMAO! You claim you've had all of those conversations with committee >> members, and don't even remember them? So I guess your big problem is >> senility. > > I currently have saved 16,709 messages that I've posted to Usenet over the past > few decades. Google's count is different, partly just because it's flakey, and > partly due the fact that it has several thousand messages I didn't manage to > save. I also estimate, based upon spot checks, that Google is missing several > thousand of the messages that I did save. > You think I should remember every single one of ~20K messages that span a > couple of decades, and who they were in response to? > Wow. Gee. You really do spew your shite all over usenet, don't you? -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jameskuyper@verizon.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 16:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <3398b381-a998-43b7-ac36-af729b7b91e1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #95025 |
On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 5:21:26 PM UTC-4, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 10/17/2016 11:32 AM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: ... > And you weren't asking for the name of one person ... I wasn't asking for the name of any committee members. I was asking you to identify at least someone on my list that you were certain was not a committee member. Of course, a complete list of those would identify the rest of the list as committee members, but I requested no such complete list. I think that the primary reason you've been unwilling to do so is that you're afraid someone will respond by providing proof that the specified person was a committee member. Of course, if you knew for certain that someone wasn't a member, you'd have no reason to worry about that issue - which tells me a lot about the quality of your information. ... > > No, please try to read for comprehension. As I said before, I did find a > > public source. The URL for that source ceased working many years ago, and > > I've never found one since then, but did find one once. > > > > So your claim about a public page is pure shite, as usual. My claim that I found such a web site is perfectly true, and completely unverifiable (and equally unfalsifiable). You have no basis for labeling it that way except your own inherent love of vulgarity and contrariness. ... > Yup, he was posting in a public group, as many Committee members used to > do. Just because you are one of thousands (or more) people who have > "communicated" with Committee members over the years in public forums > and newsgroups doesn't make you special. I never claimed that it did. I was only responding to your claim that I'd had no such communications. > But your name dropping makes you look like an even bigger fool. Ah! so that was your purpose in following this ridiculous side-argument, when you could easily have confirmed early on that I'd be able to disprove your claims. You wanted to make me look like a name-dropper! > > If you're too afraid of being proven wrong to even click on those links, > > there's not much point in pretending that the reason is that you just can't > > be bothered. Keep in mind that anyone else reading this message can click > > those links too, and as soon as they do they'll know you were mistaken > > about me having no contact with any committee member. So you'll suffer the > > embarrassment of being publicly proven wrong whether or not you click. > > It means nothing. ... It means that you were wrong when you claimed that I had never talked with any committee members. It means you were wrong when you ridiculed me for making informed guesses, saying that you only pay attention to facts. You yourself made an (ill-)informed guess that I had never talked with them, instead of bothering to check the readily available facts. > ... Thousands (or more) people have communicated with the > Committee members in public forums and newsgroups over the years. Your > name dropping makes you look like an even bigger fool. I wasn't name dropping - I was just responding to your unsupported claims that you knew committee members who "laugh at ideas like you promote. They also consider you an idiot.", by pointing out that those claims were inconsistent with my own conversations with C committee members. You responded by claiming that I had had no such conversations. That being an easy claim to disprove by using Google Groups' search engine, I did so. I never suggested that my arguments should be given greater credence just because I've had conversations with C committee members. I have learned some things from those conversations, but also from my conversations with C experts who weren't on the committee. I do believe that statements made by committee members, and statements that were accepted as true by committee members, should be given slightly more credence than those that have not, if only because they're in a better position to know the official position on those issues. However, my arguments stand or fall based only on their own merits. The correctness of my premises and the validity of my arguments are the only things that really matter. Those are things which you're unwilling to address with anything other than insults, which gives everyone a pretty clear idea of how good your reasons are for believing that I'm wrong. ... > > Note: those links are manifestly safe - the full text of those links are > > visible, and if you're at all familiar with Google Groups you should be > > able to figure out precisely what they do - so don't claim to be worried > > that I might be pointing you at a malware link. > > I don't need to worry about you pointing me towards a malware link. You > aren't that smart to find one. Plus I have good protection on my system. I was just trying to head off one of your possible stupid excuses for not clicking that link. Only you can know for sure whether I succeeded, but the rest of us can make reasonable guesses about whether you might have tried using that excuse if I hadn't explicit addressed it. .... > > But even a single message exchange would be sufficient to disprove your > > claim that I've never talked with any committee members. That's part of the > > problem with absolutes like "never" - they're so trivial to disprove. > > Hey, I've communicated with President Obama. And I even got a response > - by email, yet! Talk about personal! I never claimed to have a close, personal relationship with any of the committee members. All I've ever had with any of them is conversations over usenet and by e-mail, and I've never suggested otherwise. If you're going to criticize me for claims I didn't make, you could just as easily criticize me for not being the Messiah. ... > No, because you can't read, anyway. I never said NONE of your arguments > were non-controversial. But I DID say you have promoted some absurd > arguments. A big difference - but one I know is too hard for your > limited intellect to understand. Oh I'm quite aware of the fact that you've completely failed to identify what you thought was wrong with any of my arguments about the standard. As a result, there's no way to be sure whether you object to every aspect of my arguments, or just one key point, or something in-between those two extremes. Again, the only reason I mentioned that possibility was to head off a useless response by you to one of my arguments (which seems to have been successful) and to herd you into actually making a meaningful response to at least one of my arguments (which was no more successful than I expected it to be). It's really remarkably easy to predict non-responsiveness on your part. ... > > You said that I've never talked with any member of the committee. That > > would require that every person on my list that was marked with an '*' was > > not a committee member. Since nearly half of those people were so marked, > > it's statistically unlikely that all of the marked ones would be > > non-committee members, unless the fraction of all those names which are > > committee members is very small. That's extremely implausible, given the > > way that I put together that list. It's far more plausible that you have no > > idea what you're talking about. > > > > No, you haven't. All you did was communicate in a public forum with > them. Not the same at all. "No, you haven't" what? Not the same as what? Grammatically, a sentence with that construction should follow a sentence in which I say something like "I verbed noun-phrase", in which case your sentence would be a short form for "No, you haven't verbed noun-phrase." But no sentence of that form precedes your response. You can infer from the above comments a claim that I did talk several committee members; but that's only an inference, so you would need to use different syntax to counter that inference. At the very least, you have to specify the inferred thing that you're claiming I haven't done, whatever it is. All I ever said was that I've had conversations with committee members, which is perfectly true and easily confirmed by checking with Google Groups, unlike your claim to have had dealings with them, which cannot be confirmed at all. I cited Google Groups as a way to confirm my claim from the very beginning, from which any reasonable person might conclude that I was talking very specifically about conversations carried out in public over usenet. If you inferred any claim on my part that I was using any more personal methods of communications, that was simply a stupid mistake on your part, not anything that I gave you any good reason to believe. > Yes, you're one of thousands (or more) who have communicated with > Committee members in public forums or newsgroups. Not the same as you > claimed, at all. It is precisely what I was claiming from the very beginning. If you had paid any attention to what I was actually saying, you would have realized that. However, you've made it quite clear that you consider me undeserving of even the minimal amount of attention needed to avoid you making that mistake. ... > > You think I should remember every single one of ~20K messages that span a > > couple of decades, and who they were in response to? > > > > Wow. Gee. You really do spew your shite all over usenet, don't you? Actually, no. The overwhelming majority of my messages have been posted to this newsgroup, with comp.std.c a close second. I realize that vulgarity was the primary purpose of your comment, but I decided to address the factual content instead.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 21:00 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nu3s6e$nuf$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #95033 |
On 10/17/2016 7:07 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 5:21:26 PM UTC-4, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 10/17/2016 11:32 AM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: > ... >> And you weren't asking for the name of one person ... > > I wasn't asking for the name of any committee members. I was asking you to identify at least someone on my list that you were certain was not a committee member. Of course, a complete list of those would identify the rest of the list as committee members, but I requested no such complete list. I think that the primary reason you've been unwilling to do so is that you're afraid someone will respond by providing proof that the specified person was a committee member. Of course, if you knew for certain that someone wasn't a member, you'd have no reason to worry about that issue - which tells me a lot about the quality of your information. > Which again is asking for private information. I will neither confirm nor deny the membership of any person on the Committee. > ... >>> No, please try to read for comprehension. As I said before, I did find a >>> public source. The URL for that source ceased working many years ago, and >>> I've never found one since then, but did find one once. >>> >> >> So your claim about a public page is pure shite, as usual. > > My claim that I found such a web site is perfectly true, and completely unverifiable (and equally unfalsifiable). You have no basis for labeling it that way except your own inherent love of vulgarity and contrariness. > Unverifiable means your claim is full of shite. And it is impossible to prove a negative. You made the claim, it is up to you to prove it. > ... >> Yup, he was posting in a public group, as many Committee members used to >> do. Just because you are one of thousands (or more) people who have >> "communicated" with Committee members over the years in public forums >> and newsgroups doesn't make you special. > > I never claimed that it did. I was only responding to your claim that I'd had no such communications. > ROFLMAO! Try again! >> But your name dropping makes you look like an even bigger fool. > > Ah! so that was your purpose in following this ridiculous side-argument, when > you could easily have confirmed early on that I'd be able to disprove your > claims. You wanted to make me look like a name-dropper! > Nope, you've once again proven you are nothing but a name-dropping fool. >>> If you're too afraid of being proven wrong to even click on those links, >>> there's not much point in pretending that the reason is that you just can't >>> be bothered. Keep in mind that anyone else reading this message can click >>> those links too, and as soon as they do they'll know you were mistaken >>> about me having no contact with any committee member. So you'll suffer the >>> embarrassment of being publicly proven wrong whether or not you click. >> >> It means nothing. ... > > It means that you were wrong when you claimed that I had never talked with any > committee members. It means you were wrong when you ridiculed me for making > informed guesses, saying that you only pay attention to facts. You yourself > made an (ill-)informed guess that I had never talked with them, instead of > bothering to check the readily available facts. > No, it means nothing. I work with facts. By your own admission your "guesses" were not facts. >> ... Thousands (or more) people have communicated with the >> Committee members in public forums and newsgroups over the years. Your >> name dropping makes you look like an even bigger fool. > > I wasn't name dropping - I was just responding to your unsupported claims that > you knew committee members who "laugh at ideas like you promote. They also > consider you an idiot.", by pointing out that those claims were inconsistent > with my own conversations with C committee members. You responded by claiming > that I had had no such conversations. That being an easy claim to disprove by > using Google Groups' search engine, I did so. > ROFLMAO! You were name dropping - nothing more, nothing less. > I never suggested that my arguments should be given greater credence just > because I've had conversations with C committee members. I have learned some > things from those conversations, but also from my conversations with C experts > who weren't on the committee. I do believe that statements made by committee > members, and statements that were accepted as true by committee members, should > be given slightly more credence than those that have not, if only because > they're in a better position to know the official position on those issues. > Oh, but you did - by your name dropping. > However, my arguments stand or fall based only on their own merits. The > correctness of my premises and the validity of my arguments are the only things > that really matter. Those are things which you're unwilling to address with > anything other than insults, which gives everyone a pretty clear idea of how > good your reasons are for believing that I'm wrong. > Yes, your arguments fall based on their lack of merits. > ... >>> Note: those links are manifestly safe - the full text of those links are >>> visible, and if you're at all familiar with Google Groups you should be >>> able to figure out precisely what they do - so don't claim to be worried >>> that I might be pointing you at a malware link. >> >> I don't need to worry about you pointing me towards a malware link. You >> aren't that smart to find one. Plus I have good protection on my system. > > I was just trying to head off one of your possible stupid excuses for not > clicking that link. Only you can know for sure whether I succeeded, but the > rest of us can make reasonable guesses about whether you might have tried using > that excuse if I hadn't explicit addressed it. > ROFLMAO! No stupid excuses. Just not wasting my time on trolls. > .... >>> But even a single message exchange would be sufficient to disprove your >>> claim that I've never talked with any committee members. That's part of the >>> problem with absolutes like "never" - they're so trivial to disprove. >> >> Hey, I've communicated with President Obama. And I even got a response >> - by email, yet! Talk about personal! > > I never claimed to have a close, personal relationship with any of the > committee members. All I've ever had with any of them is conversations over > usenet and by e-mail, and I've never suggested otherwise. If you're going to > criticize me for claims I didn't make, you could just as easily criticize me > for not being the Messiah. > You should again look at your posts. You intimated exactly that. And now you are backpedaling. > ... >> No, because you can't read, anyway. I never said NONE of your arguments >> were non-controversial. But I DID say you have promoted some absurd >> arguments. A big difference - but one I know is too hard for your >> limited intellect to understand. > > Oh I'm quite aware of the fact that you've completely failed to identify what > you thought was wrong with any of my arguments about the standard. As a result, > there's no way to be sure whether you object to every aspect of my arguments, > or just one key point, or something in-between those two extremes. > I identified a lot of what was wrong with your arguments. But you are either too attached to your ideas or too stoopid to understand the fallacies in your arguments - or both. > Again, the only reason I mentioned that possibility was to head off a useless > response by you to one of my arguments (which seems to have been successful) > and to herd you into actually making a meaningful response to at least one of > my arguments (which was no more successful than I expected it to be). It's > really remarkably easy to predict non-responsiveness on your part. > Responding to your arguments is like trying to teach a pig to sing. > ... >>> You said that I've never talked with any member of the committee. That >>> would require that every person on my list that was marked with an '*' was >>> not a committee member. Since nearly half of those people were so marked, >>> it's statistically unlikely that all of the marked ones would be >>> non-committee members, unless the fraction of all those names which are >>> committee members is very small. That's extremely implausible, given the >>> way that I put together that list. It's far more plausible that you have no >>> idea what you're talking about. >>> >> >> No, you haven't. All you did was communicate in a public forum with >> them. Not the same at all. > > "No, you haven't" what? Not the same as what? Grammatically, a sentence with > that construction should follow a sentence in which I say something like "I > verbed noun-phrase", in which case your sentence would be a short form for "No, > you haven't verbed noun-phrase." But no sentence of that form precedes your > response. You can infer from the above comments a claim that I did talk several > committee members; but that's only an inference, so you would need to use > different syntax to counter that inference. At the very least, you have to > specify the inferred thing that you're claiming I haven't done, whatever it is. > ROFLMAO! Once again you don't understand plain English - so you try to attack me instead. Typical troll. > All I ever said was that I've had conversations with committee members, which > is perfectly true and easily confirmed by checking with Google Groups, unlike > your claim to have had dealings with them, which cannot be confirmed at all. I > cited Google Groups as a way to confirm my claim from the very beginning, from > which any reasonable person might conclude that I was talking very specifically > about conversations carried out in public over usenet. If you inferred any > claim on my part that I was using any more personal methods of communications, > that was simply a stupid mistake on your part, not anything that I gave you any > good reason to believe. > ROFLMAO! You intimated much more than that. >> Yes, you're one of thousands (or more) who have communicated with >> Committee members in public forums or newsgroups. Not the same as you >> claimed, at all. > > It is precisely what I was claiming from the very beginning. If you had paid > any attention to what I was actually saying, you would have realized that. > However, you've made it quite clear that you consider me undeserving of even > the minimal amount of attention needed to avoid you making that mistake. > No, that is NOT what you were "claiming from the very beginning". And yes, you are undeserving of even the minimal amount of attention for anyone. > ... >>> You think I should remember every single one of ~20K messages that span a >>> couple of decades, and who they were in response to? >>> >> >> Wow. Gee. You really do spew your shite all over usenet, don't you? > > Actually, no. The overwhelming majority of my messages have been posted to this > newsgroup, with comp.std.c a close second. I realize that vulgarity was the > primary purpose of your comment, but I decided to address the factual content > instead. > So you don't spew your shite all over usenet - just a couple of newsgroups. That is a win for usenet (although a loss for two newsgroups). -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 21:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7c846296-dcef-42b2-b256-54ccae6a8a2c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #95033 |
On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 6:07:17 PM UTC-5, James R. Kuyper wrote: > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 5:21:26 PM UTC-4, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > > On 10/17/2016 11:32 AM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: > ... While this is all very entertaining (and the links to old threads are /very/ entertaining), I urge James to be assured that no one worth worrying about will be deceived by any of Jerry's drivel. Whenever you tire of this, you may let his venomous blather echo upon his own ears. Nobody's listening to Jerry. -- "We're your friends! We're your friends till the bitter end" -- the vultures in The Jungle Book
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 10:45 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nu5ch1$ujk$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95039 |
On 10/18/2016 12:49 AM, luser droog wrote: > On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 6:07:17 PM UTC-5, James R. Kuyper wrote: >> On Monday, October 17, 2016 at 5:21:26 PM UTC-4, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 10/17/2016 11:32 AM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >> ... > > While this is all very entertaining (and the links to old threads are > /very/ entertaining), I urge James to be assured that no one worth > worrying about will be deceived by any of Jerry's drivel. Whenever > you tire of this, you may let his venomous blather echo upon his own > ears. Nobody's listening to Jerry. His latest "response" was sufficiently non-responsive to make me lose interest, at least for now. I really try to ignore him as he deserves to be ignored, but every once in a while I see a message quoting him as saying something I feel I have to respond to. Oddly enough, it isn't his most extreme statements that trigger in me the feeling "that's so outrageous I have to prove him wrong". Actually, it's usually when he makes a claim that gives me the impression that it might be feasible to convince him he's wrong. Every time he makes it clear that he's incapable of being convinced makes it a little easier for me to ignore such situations in the future. This time, any time after I mentioned specific committee members who I'd exchanged usenet messages with, it would have been trivial for him to confirm that claim, but he never even tried checking until I simplified it down a single click on a link. Even then, he didn't concede that he was wrong when he claimed there were no such exchanges, he simply tried to make it seem like I'd claimed something quite different, and that he'd claimed something quite different. This pretty much completely extinguishes what little hope I still had of seeing rational behavior on his part. Which is not to say I can guarantee that he'll never again say anything capable of provoking a response from me. But I'm going to try harder to resist the temptation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 10:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <nu23kl$i0t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94943 |
On 17/10/16 00:38, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: > I have a very definite idea of who is on the Committee, it's just not a > complete or perfectly accurate idea, which is nothing odd for real-world > knowledge. Nothing requires committee members to identify themselves as such. For some reason, this is conjuring up images of the Illuminati meetings in Tomb Raider... The C standards committee always seem to be more secretive than the C++ standards committee. I guess this is just because changes to the C standards are mostly small and come out rarely, so it's not something the committee members are involved in on a daily basis - while there are always proposals and changes to deal with in the C++ standards world. Still, the idea of them taking Jerry seriously while laughing at James or Richard is absurd.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anand Hariharan <mailto.anand.hariharan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 16:01 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7932e0a5-92a4-4fc8-be41-eccff852e889@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #94900 |
On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 9:48:05 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > > Oh, I have. And I hate to tell you, but I know a couple of the > Committee members. Are they Nilges and/or Schildt (http://www.herbschildt.com/abouths.htm) by any chance? > They laugh at ideas like you promote. That could have been Nilges. > They also > consider you an idiot. > > I don't dismiss them as language lawyers. They know what they're > talking about. Unlike you. > Many of the language lawyers in the group (used to) consider Schildt's "Annotated C Standard" as excellent value for money. While I have not read the book myself, I am told that it was paginated extremely well.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-17 19:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <f17202cc-08a1-f1ee-3f76-a5259f7a0cf5@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #95032 |
On 10/17/2016 07:01 PM, Anand Hariharan wrote: > On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 9:48:05 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> >> Oh, I have. And I hate to tell you, but I know a couple of the >> Committee members. > > Are they Nilges and/or Schildt (http://www.herbschildt.com/abouths.htm) by any chance? ... > Many of the language lawyers in the group (used to) consider Schildt's "Annotated C Standard" as excellent value for money. The most positive thing that is said on Schildt's wikipedia page about the reception to his books is: > Schildt "has learnt something, not enough to receive positive acclaim but enough to remove the 'positively detrimental' epithet". Wikipedia's policies about biographies of living persons prohibit a more detailed description of the reception to his books.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 00:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7424e097-7fa8-4f92-893e-97aeebdf45a1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #95032 |
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 12:02:27 AM UTC+1, Anand Hariharan wrote: > On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 9:48:05 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > > > > Oh, I have. And I hate to tell you, but I know a couple of the > > Committee members. > > Are they Nilges and/or Schildt (http://www.herbschildt.com/abouths.htm) > by any chance? > Nilges got the idea in his head that there was some sort of conspiracy against Schildt, though to what end I don't know. I think he liked to fantasise that he was involved in political events in a way that simply wasn't the case. However he was right that there was a sort of pack mentality to criticise and rubbish Schildt's work. It was a bit similar to anti- Microsoft chic. The books genuinely contained small technical errors on every page. But they were well-written and popular, and most readers found them useful as an informal guide to C. As Sussman said "Software doesn't always have to work. You type a search into Google and often results don't come up. So you just try again. It doesn't always matter if it doesn't always work." Real requirement aren't always obvious to people trained to think in a single way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 08:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nu4jmm$8lg$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95040 |
On 18/10/16 08:33, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 12:02:27 AM UTC+1, Anand Hariharan wrote: >> On Saturday, October 15, 2016 at 9:48:05 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> >>> Oh, I have. And I hate to tell you, but I know a couple of the >>> Committee members. >> >> Are they Nilges and/or Schildt (http://www.herbschildt.com/abouths.htm) >> by any chance? >> > Nilges got the idea in his head that there was some sort of conspiracy > against Schildt, though to what end I don't know. I think he liked > to fantasise that he was involved in political events in a way that > simply wasn't the case. > > However he was right that there was a sort of pack mentality to > criticise and rubbish Schildt's work. Schildt's work was genuinely appalling. I am told that, in recent years, he has grudgingly accepted that there may be something in what his critics have been saying. > It was a bit similar to anti- > Microsoft chic. The books genuinely contained small technical errors > on every page. Some of them were very serious errors indeed, and he tended to write tutorials, where the writer takes on the responsibility of a teacher not to lie to his students. > But they were well-written and popular, and most > readers found them useful as an informal guide to C. That may well be one of the reasons there are so many bugs in C programs nowadays. > As Sussman said > "Software doesn't always have to work. You type a search into Google > and often results don't come up. So you just try again. It doesn't > always matter if it doesn't always work." I would rather use the software of someone who cares about accuracy than that of someone who doesn't. > Real requirement aren't > always obvious to people trained to think in a single way. Are you claiming that you require for software to be flawed? If so, Schildt's your man. -- 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 | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 01:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ccf80d86-7bef-40f8-8554-603d08e377da@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #95042 |
On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 8:41:36 AM UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote: > > > As Sussman said > > "Software doesn't always have to work. You type a search into Google > > and often results don't come up. So you just try again. It doesn't > > always matter if it doesn't always work." > > I would rather use the software of someone who cares about accuracy than > that of someone who doesn't. > In the 1980s and 1990s, a lot of people wrote extensively about formal methods. The irony, as someone pointed out, was that they were composing their books on software not designed according to the methods they were advocating. You use what is available and useful, almost always, except maybe for a very narrow, specialised requirement if you happen to be technical officer in charge of selecting software to purchase for that use.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-18 08:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnpomxekwn.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #95040 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
[...]
> However he was right that there was a sort of pack mentality to
> criticise and rubbish Schildt's work. It was a bit similar to anti-
> Microsoft chic. The books genuinely contained small technical errors
> on every page.
The books genuinely contained *major* technical errors on nearly every
page. There is no excuse for the kind of sloppiness we see in some of
Schildt's early books about C. They are criticized because they are
rubbish.
See Clive Feather's review of Schildt's "The Annotated ANSI C Standard"
http://www.davros.org/c/schildt.html
and Seebs's review of "C: The Complete Reference"
https://www.seebs.net/c/c_tcn4e.html
> But they were well-written and popular, and most
> readers found them useful as an informal guide to C.
And that is extremely unfortunate. There's a big difference between
informality and being wrong.
Like Richard, I've heard that he improved in later years.
[...]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 10:05 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln1szmolxy.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #94722 |
ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
[...]
> I am using "address" for "pointer value" and
> "pointer" for "pointer object".
Is a null pointer value an "address"? (I'd say no.)
Note also that the standard sometimes uses the word "pointer" to mean
"pointer value"; see the description of malloc(), for example.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 11:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <8be0cdbe-c2f4-42ec-b6a7-e9a154981718@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #94733 |
On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 12:05:21 PM UTC-5, Keith Thompson wrote: > Stefan Ram writes: > [...] > > I am using "address" for "pointer value" and > > "pointer" for "pointer object". > > Is a null pointer value an "address"? (I'd say no.) Whether *any* pointer represents any kind of address is an implementation detail. I would say that on most systems which don't treat null pointers specially beyond having control bits for the first page of address space set to trap, a null pointer is just as much an address as any other pointer. An attempt to read or write logical address zero may trigger a page-fault interrupt that may in turn cause the application to be forcibly terminated, but such behavior would stem from treating a pointer as an address. While the Standard allows implementations to treat null pointers specially, and some optimizers may treat null dereferences are unreachable, I'm skeptical as to how often the benefits of such optimizations significantly outweigh the benefits of treating null pointers as having addresses like any other pointers (in most cases, neither approach would have any benefits over the other).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 11:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnwphen2fm.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #94736 |
supercat@casperkitty.com writes:
> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 12:05:21 PM UTC-5, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Stefan Ram writes:
>> [...]
>> > I am using "address" for "pointer value" and
>> > "pointer" for "pointer object".
>>
>> Is a null pointer value an "address"? (I'd say no.)
>
> Whether *any* pointer represents any kind of address is an implementation
> detail.
[...]
No, it isn't.
It might be if you use the word "address" to refer to some low-level
concept, but I'm using it the way the standard uses it. See, for
example, the description of the unary "&" operator.
I don't believe the standard has a formal definition of the word
"address". The result of the unary "&" operator is clearly an
"address" in the way the standard uses the word. It's less clear
(to me) whether a null pointer value is an "address" in that sense.
It doesn't matter much, and I'd be perfectly happy with either
interpretation. I'm just pointing out that using the word "address" to
mean "pointer value" could cause some confusion.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 12:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnoa2qn182.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #94736 |
ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
> supercat@casperkitty.com writes:
>>Whether *any* pointer represents any kind of address is an implementation
>
> The null pointer might be called an "address constant".
>
> »An address constant is a null pointer, a pointer to an
> lvalue designating an object of static storage duration,
> or a pointer to a function designator«, 6.6.p9
>
> This says that an address constant can be a null pointer.
>
> Read from the right to the left, it says that a null
> pointer is an address constant.
>
> I think it's safe to say that an address constant is an address.
> So a null pointer is an address.
> It is just not an address /of an object/.
That section is badly worded in my opinion. An "address constant" is a
source code construct. A "null pointer" is a runtime value.
It's clear enough that at least `(void*)0` is an "address constant". I
suppose it's therefore reasonable to infer that a null pointer value is
an "address". I'd be more comfortable with that conclusion if it were
stated more clearly.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 22:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ntjkp5$ptf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94741 |
On 11/10/2016 20:18, Keith Thompson wrote: > ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes: >> supercat@casperkitty.com writes: >>> Whether *any* pointer represents any kind of address is an implementation >> >> The null pointer might be called an "address constant". >> >> »An address constant is a null pointer, a pointer to an >> lvalue designating an object of static storage duration, >> or a pointer to a function designator«, 6.6.p9 >> >> This says that an address constant can be a null pointer. >> >> Read from the right to the left, it says that a null >> pointer is an address constant. >> >> I think it's safe to say that an address constant is an address. >> So a null pointer is an address. >> It is just not an address /of an object/. > > That section is badly worded in my opinion. An "address constant" is a > source code construct. A "null pointer" is a runtime value. > > It's clear enough that at least `(void*)0` is an "address constant". I > suppose it's therefore reasonable to infer that a null pointer value is > an "address". I'd be more comfortable with that conclusion if it were > stated more clearly. I'm sure this amount of pedantry is going to be really helpful 55 seconds into a nearly five-hour video. If someone wasn't quite ready to turn it off, or go to sleep, this will improve the chances! A throwaway remark about a 'pointer variable' I think is perfectly fine for something targeted at a complete beginner. The remark was part of a comment in a screen-shot of code, which wasn't spoken (I haven't sat through the remaining 4 hours and 37 minutes to know if the same phrase keeps coming up). -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 14:40 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnfuo2mums.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #94747 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 11/10/2016 20:18, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
>>> supercat@casperkitty.com writes:
>>>> Whether *any* pointer represents any kind of address is an implementation
>>>
>>> The null pointer might be called an "address constant".
>>>
>>> »An address constant is a null pointer, a pointer to an
>>> lvalue designating an object of static storage duration,
>>> or a pointer to a function designator«, 6.6.p9
>>>
>>> This says that an address constant can be a null pointer.
>>>
>>> Read from the right to the left, it says that a null
>>> pointer is an address constant.
>>>
>>> I think it's safe to say that an address constant is an address.
>>> So a null pointer is an address.
>>> It is just not an address /of an object/.
>>
>> That section is badly worded in my opinion. An "address constant" is a
>> source code construct. A "null pointer" is a runtime value.
>>
>> It's clear enough that at least `(void*)0` is an "address constant". I
>> suppose it's therefore reasonable to infer that a null pointer value is
>> an "address". I'd be more comfortable with that conclusion if it were
>> stated more clearly.
>
> I'm sure this amount of pedantry is going to be really helpful 55
> seconds into a nearly five-hour video. If someone wasn't quite ready to
> turn it off, or go to sleep, this will improve the chances!
I know the video was the starting point for this thread, but I haven't
watched it and I wasn't commenting on it. I wasn't even commenting on
the use of the phrase "pointer variable". All I was talking about was
whether the word "address", as used in the standard, applies to a null
pointer value.
[...]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 23:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ntjq2k$9o2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94747 |
On 11/10/16 22:15, BartC wrote: <snip> > A throwaway remark about a 'pointer variable' I think is perfectly fine > for something targeted at a complete beginner. There we will have to differ, then. Complete beginners should not be told lies by their teachers. -- 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 | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 18:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln7f9eml0d.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #94751 |
ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>>There we will have to differ, then. Complete beginners should not be
>>told lies by their teachers.
>
> Complete beginners should not be told about pointers at all!
>
> I sometimes use l^Hsimplifications, when their benefit seems
> to be larger than the damage they cause.
>
> I explain early that the type of a string literal is
> »char*«, but I explain the »*« as follows:
>
> In »char*«, the »*« indicates a repetition of a
> character (»char«), that is a sequence of characters.
>
> This may even verge on being correct, just a little bit
> "abstract"¹.
>
> Addresses are then only treated much later in my course.
I can understand the value of simplifications when teaching beginners.
This, in my humble opinion, goes beyond that, in a very bad way. It
instills tempting but false ideas that could be difficult to untangle
when the student is ready to learn more. "*" does denote repetition in
some contexts (regular exressions), but not in any that are relevent
here. It reinforces the pervasive fallacy that arrays are really just
pointers. It is, in my opinion, deliberately misleading.
Pointers are so pervasive in C, that you can't completely avoid them for
very long. You can probably avoid mentioning them initially, especially
if you concentrate on programs that do integer arithmetic.
> ¹) Scott Meyers writes in an Item of "Effective Modern C++":
>
> »It's been said that the truth shall set you free, but
> under the right circumstances, a well-chosen lie can be
> equally liberating. This Item is such a lie. Because
> we're dealing with software, however, let's eschew the
> word "lie" and instead say that this Item comprises an
> "abstraction."«
I'd like to see the context for that.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web