Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #60841 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-04-23 08:09 +0100 |
| Last post | 2015-11-15 14:57 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 728 — 44 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 08:09 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 10:56 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-23 21:13 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 11:25 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 10:36 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 11:54 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 11:06 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 12:35 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 11:44 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 12:56 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 12:16 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-23 12:09 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-24 07:52 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-23 16:15 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-04-24 08:21 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-23 16:44 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-24 13:01 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gwowen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 04:16 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 12:19 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robbie Hatley <see.my.sig@for.my.address> - 2015-04-24 04:42 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-24 16:07 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robbie Hatley <see.my.sig@for.my.address> - 2015-04-25 22:08 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-26 14:29 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-04-26 15:45 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.lists@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-23 11:43 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-04-23 09:29 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-23 11:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-25 03:03 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 10:53 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.lists@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-23 11:37 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 12:12 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2015-04-23 12:46 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-23 08:47 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Fred K <fred.l.kleinschmidt@gmail.com> - 2015-04-23 07:39 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-23 16:20 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-23 12:43 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-24 01:40 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-24 11:14 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-24 10:02 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-24 18:20 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Dow Allen <jdallen2000@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-24 13:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-04-25 10:25 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-24 23:02 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.lists@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-04-24 11:30 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-26 08:09 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-26 12:26 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-28 09:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-04-28 11:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-28 20:09 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 07:11 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-05-09 13:14 +0300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-10 08:23 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-10 11:06 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-11 21:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-10 12:20 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-05-10 13:22 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-10 18:44 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-10 11:12 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-11 21:46 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 10:11 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 18:26 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 11:29 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-13 09:14 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-13 11:55 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-13 14:55 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-13 14:35 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-13 08:24 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-13 18:47 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-13 21:15 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-13 19:40 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-13 21:08 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-13 20:52 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-13 21:06 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-13 23:28 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-14 00:19 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 04:29 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 09:57 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-14 04:56 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-14 11:34 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:24 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-16 01:21 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-17 10:00 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 12:46 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 13:20 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:22 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-16 01:59 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-16 09:51 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-16 05:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-16 19:32 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:13 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-17 10:13 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-13 18:54 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 01:31 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-13 21:05 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-14 00:48 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:27 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-16 02:00 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 09:41 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-14 05:02 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 13:44 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 17:32 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-14 20:18 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-05-15 05:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-15 13:47 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-05-16 02:51 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-16 17:13 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-05-17 22:34 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-20 08:47 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-17 10:36 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-17 12:26 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 14:13 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-17 13:45 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 15:02 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-17 14:20 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 15:51 +0100
I'm starting a new thread (Was: Spurious diagnostic messages) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-17 15:00 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-17 07:58 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-17 15:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 22:28 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-20 08:59 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-20 11:58 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages bart4858@gmail.com - 2015-05-20 14:00 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-20 18:10 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages bart4858@gmail.com - 2015-05-21 00:57 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-21 12:40 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages bart4858@gmail.com - 2015-05-21 13:25 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-21 14:33 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-22 09:11 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 08:15 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-22 11:47 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 12:11 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-23 07:26 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 14:14 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-23 09:28 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-22 21:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-05-25 11:36 +0300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-22 14:16 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 08:38 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-22 18:06 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 13:56 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-22 23:38 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-22 18:28 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 16:44 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 07:44 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-24 16:52 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-24 22:19 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-24 22:28 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-25 00:00 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 10:12 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-24 23:13 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-25 11:30 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-05-25 07:41 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-25 17:10 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-25 17:42 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-25 12:20 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 10:07 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-10 20:09 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 11:19 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-11 20:25 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-16 08:48 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-16 14:21 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 08:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 21:21 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-23 02:49 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-23 21:35 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 07:30 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-24 15:35 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 08:13 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-27 18:14 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-01 09:06 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages "Bartc" <bartc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-01 18:26 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-09 08:45 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-23 11:48 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 08:50 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-19 04:54 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-17 11:49 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 09:06 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-20 18:18 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-20 11:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-20 20:09 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-20 13:18 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-20 16:24 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 07:59 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-07-21 21:07 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-07-21 07:52 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-20 23:17 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-20 15:51 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-24 13:50 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-24 22:45 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-25 18:59 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-25 20:49 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-31 13:22 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 08:48 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-25 12:04 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-26 09:11 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-26 11:26 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-26 22:02 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-26 14:59 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-26 16:58 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-26 16:19 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-27 08:45 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 12:46 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-06-21 20:41 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-06-21 13:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 10:19 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-11 08:47 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 13:40 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-21 13:49 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-25 20:17 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-26 16:54 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-31 01:25 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-31 17:46 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-02 06:00 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 16:31 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 13:13 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-25 08:36 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-26 08:38 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-27 16:22 +1300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-04 11:49 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-10-04 14:25 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-05 17:19 +1300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-09 10:29 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-09 18:45 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-09 13:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-09 22:13 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-09 15:31 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-12 09:48 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-12 18:04 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages jadill33@gmail.com - 2015-10-12 10:29 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-10-12 11:09 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-12 14:46 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-10-12 15:35 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-10-13 08:58 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-10-13 06:37 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-10-13 21:34 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-10-10 15:44 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-19 10:06 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-19 10:22 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-19 15:57 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-10 00:58 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-10 14:25 +1300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-10 04:01 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-09 20:03 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-10 09:04 +1300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-14 10:55 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-14 13:11 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-14 23:17 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-19 09:41 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-10-19 10:17 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-19 18:49 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-10-19 11:21 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-19 11:50 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-10-19 12:57 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-19 14:37 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-10-19 15:56 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-19 13:08 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-19 21:06 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-19 20:26 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-10-19 20:51 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-20 09:01 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-20 22:07 +1300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-20 15:20 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-20 11:34 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-20 11:37 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-20 03:51 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-20 12:15 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-10-20 12:51 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-20 14:16 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-20 15:32 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-10-20 16:49 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-10-25 21:26 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-25 14:58 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-25 23:33 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-10-25 20:34 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-11-10 14:56 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-11-10 08:53 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-10 21:17 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-10 21:06 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-10-20 14:54 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-10-20 12:37 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-19 20:58 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-19 23:17 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-19 11:12 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-19 19:30 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-19 11:44 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-11 08:15 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-11 08:48 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-12 13:24 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-12 06:42 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-12 15:57 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-12 08:26 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-12 22:05 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-12 13:31 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-13 11:02 +1300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-13 09:01 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-12 23:15 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-12 22:32 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-12 16:31 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-13 02:09 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-12 19:56 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-13 13:22 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-13 09:59 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-14 17:03 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-11-14 12:58 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-14 14:39 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-14 15:43 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-14 20:48 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-11-17 21:50 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-17 14:14 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-11-27 16:28 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-27 11:26 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-27 13:32 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-12-10 19:38 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-15 22:00 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-15 18:51 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-16 09:03 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-17 10:17 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-17 12:39 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-18 00:36 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-17 16:46 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-11-17 20:20 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-18 06:00 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-17 23:28 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-17 19:01 -0600
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-20 15:59 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-21 15:33 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-11-21 15:09 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-21 15:27 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-22 18:28 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-22 10:23 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-23 06:30 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-11-22 12:51 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-22 22:04 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-22 15:07 -0600
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-23 00:14 -0600
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-23 08:32 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-11-24 02:10 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-24 10:39 -0600
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-23 06:35 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-23 06:23 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-11-23 08:01 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-23 22:18 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-11-23 17:42 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-24 05:23 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-11-24 06:45 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-24 13:39 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-11-24 09:05 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-24 08:28 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-25 02:19 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-27 13:37 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-22 18:20 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-21 15:12 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-11-21 10:28 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-22 18:30 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-22 15:13 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-23 06:42 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-22 14:40 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-23 06:55 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-11-14 10:16 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-11-14 13:44 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2015-11-14 14:17 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-14 22:00 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-11-14 13:02 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-11-15 10:07 +1300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-15 01:43 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-11-14 22:51 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-15 05:27 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-11-15 10:06 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-14 13:20 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-11-15 01:36 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-13 09:04 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-11-13 05:32 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-11-13 08:46 -0600
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-13 14:56 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-11-13 12:24 -0600
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-12 16:36 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-11-13 13:36 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-11-12 17:04 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-11-13 07:16 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-11-12 17:07 -0600
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-11-11 08:54 -0800
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-11-12 17:03 -0600
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-11-12 23:11 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-15 10:05 +1300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-10-16 06:51 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-19 10:47 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-19 21:15 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-20 10:45 +1300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-10 00:48 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-14 10:14 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-10-14 11:05 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-10-14 22:37 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-14 13:48 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-10-14 14:49 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-10-15 09:56 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-14 23:37 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-14 23:28 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-18 06:06 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-19 03:50 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-19 15:49 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-20 12:01 +1300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-20 01:59 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-10-19 19:57 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-20 09:28 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-10-20 09:46 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-06 11:39 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-09 13:37 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-10 11:55 +1300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-10 00:19 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-14 09:46 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-10 00:46 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-14 09:54 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-31 09:01 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-01 08:13 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 01:08 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 14:29 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-03 09:15 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-03 08:22 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-08-22 08:24 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-22 19:24 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 11:02 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-24 20:13 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-30 13:30 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-22 03:06 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-25 08:12 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-26 07:44 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-26 15:33 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-09-28 19:57 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-09-28 20:52 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-09-29 11:19 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-28 22:26 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-30 13:56 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2015-09-30 19:22 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-30 19:45 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-04 09:02 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-04 18:34 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-05 00:23 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-04 15:56 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-10-04 20:04 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-09 09:13 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-09 13:40 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-10-10 22:26 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-10-10 13:49 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-14 07:53 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-27 17:30 +1300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-04 10:26 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-05 17:02 +1300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-09 10:06 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 16:56 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-03 08:36 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-08-03 17:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-03 18:41 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 11:04 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-26 11:08 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-26 15:35 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-27 00:17 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-27 00:53 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-27 08:19 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-01 10:10 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-01 13:43 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-08-02 00:04 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 01:16 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-08-02 12:21 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 19:42 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 09:58 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-24 22:22 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-29 08:55 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-09-29 10:22 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-04 23:42 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-10-05 09:41 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-09 13:22 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-29 22:28 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-05 00:14 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-10-05 10:30 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-10-05 10:06 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-10-06 09:23 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-10-06 11:18 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-06 14:29 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-10-06 15:33 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-10-07 12:35 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-10-07 10:57 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-10-07 07:09 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-10-08 09:28 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-10-08 01:45 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-08 09:42 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-10-08 09:42 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-07 09:40 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-10-08 09:44 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-10-08 08:25 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-10-08 20:36 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-08 13:28 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-08 22:21 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-10-08 14:33 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-10-09 10:24 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-10-09 08:35 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-10-11 15:18 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-10-11 14:53 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-10-12 09:17 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-10-12 00:37 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-10 00:31 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-10-10 10:50 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-10-10 11:01 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-10 03:43 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-10-10 13:26 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-10-10 13:34 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-10-11 15:25 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-14 07:43 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-10-14 17:00 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-08-01 20:20 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-02 18:57 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-02 08:21 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-01 14:31 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tonton Th <tTh@nowhere.invalid> - 2015-08-01 22:26 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 01:10 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-08-02 09:02 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-02 14:23 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 15:31 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-02 09:01 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 16:56 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-03 10:18 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-03 12:10 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 10:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-24 20:01 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-22 03:30 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-25 08:16 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-26 07:49 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-27 17:31 +1300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-04 09:48 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-10-06 11:28 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-09 13:42 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-10-09 14:04 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-12 10:34 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-08-03 14:11 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-04 10:56 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-08-01 16:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-02 12:59 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-09 13:39 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 13:37 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-08-02 13:17 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 19:45 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 15:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-03 09:34 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-04 11:04 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-04 09:07 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-09 13:28 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-08-02 14:00 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-05 11:31 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-06 10:47 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-10 05:19 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-10 16:07 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-29 09:20 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-09-29 22:46 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-05 00:38 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-30 09:56 +1300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-09-29 15:14 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-09-29 16:09 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-04 23:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-10-05 09:56 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-30 13:09 +1300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-05 00:49 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-06 13:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-10 04:59 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-09-10 12:53 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-22 05:06 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-22 19:00 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 15:53 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-02 15:45 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-03 09:40 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-08-24 11:41 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-04 11:23 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-08-04 09:12 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-08-09 13:33 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-06 10:59 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-09-06 22:21 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-22 03:33 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-07 13:44 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-26 08:51 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-09-27 12:01 +1300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-10-04 09:24 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-05 17:32 +1300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-20 10:44 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages bart4858@gmail.com - 2015-05-20 13:42 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-20 14:17 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-05-20 21:25 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-23 10:17 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-23 10:15 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-23 11:46 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-23 17:22 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-05-25 11:49 +0300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-25 10:50 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-23 15:57 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-23 22:51 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-23 19:01 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-23 22:50 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-23 23:41 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-24 00:40 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-05-24 02:57 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-24 07:40 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-24 14:24 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-24 09:23 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-24 15:36 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-24 13:10 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 07:44 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-24 19:26 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-25 00:51 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-25 15:48 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-26 02:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-26 13:23 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-27 00:55 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-29 12:28 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-29 13:44 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-29 15:55 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-29 18:17 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-29 10:52 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-26 13:27 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-26 21:09 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-27 00:03 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-27 00:59 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 01:15 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-27 13:34 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-27 14:07 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-27 19:53 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-27 21:21 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-05-27 21:45 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-28 17:36 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-27 10:36 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-27 16:54 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 16:08 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-05-27 12:18 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 18:39 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-27 22:04 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 21:38 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-27 19:54 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-27 19:58 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-28 14:24 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-27 13:51 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 11:08 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 11:05 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-07-10 18:08 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 07:55 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2015-07-11 15:02 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-21 14:08 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-21 13:27 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-21 15:30 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-07-22 15:04 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-25 10:27 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-07-21 13:55 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-25 14:18 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-08-02 20:16 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-09-06 09:49 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 22:20 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-28 10:28 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-28 06:00 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 10:22 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 10:32 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-27 17:08 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Thomas Jahns <jahns@idontlikespam.dkrz.de> - 2015-05-28 15:49 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-28 15:03 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-28 14:35 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-28 16:54 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages jadill33@gmail.com - 2015-05-28 10:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Thomas Jahns <jahns@idontlikespam.dkrz.de> - 2015-05-29 10:17 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-27 10:40 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-27 19:56 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-27 13:46 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-27 21:16 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 15:47 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-27 14:08 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-27 22:11 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-27 20:10 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-28 02:21 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-28 03:21 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2015-05-27 22:17 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 22:22 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-28 14:52 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-27 18:55 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2015-05-27 15:31 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-05-25 12:11 +0300
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-25 11:04 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-25 12:30 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-25 15:41 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-25 15:20 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-24 10:57 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-25 14:31 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-25 22:30 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-25 17:56 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-29 12:34 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-29 14:04 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Alain Ketterlin <alain@universite-de-strasbourg.fr.invalid> - 2015-05-29 15:28 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-06-05 15:18 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-29 15:31 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-17 15:35 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-17 07:56 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-17 16:14 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-17 12:57 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-17 15:46 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-18 11:10 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-18 08:56 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-18 18:09 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-18 18:03 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-05-18 14:41 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-17 15:39 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-17 13:58 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-13 19:17 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> - 2015-05-14 09:54 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-14 08:57 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-14 08:31 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-14 08:33 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-14 14:37 +1200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-14 13:13 +0200
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-15 16:26 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-13 18:44 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2015-06-21 12:46 -0400
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-22 07:37 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-12 11:23 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 13:08 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-22 06:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-28 12:30 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Dow Allen <gmail@jamesdowallen.nospam> - 2015-04-29 04:07 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 07:48 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-25 03:32 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-04-26 09:33 +0100
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-26 07:37 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-25 04:01 -0700
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-11-15 12:59 -0600
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-11-15 21:46 +0000
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-11-15 17:48 -0500
Re: Spurious diagnostic messages supercat@casperkitty.com - 2015-11-15 14:57 -0800
Page 29 of 37 — ← Prev page 1 … 27 28 [29] 30 31 … 37 Next page →
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 13:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln1tebuwdn.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #69512 |
Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> writes:
[...]
>> I don't know why you wouldn't just follow the C++14 choices on this:
>> Apostrophes, and repeated ones are not allowed. I think I'd have
>> liked underscores a bit better, but I've no problems with the
>> apostrophes (and those avoid some ambiguities).
>
> It's a ghastly decision. We can only hope that the C++
> choice doesn't come back around and get rammed down the
> throats of the C community. Bleah.
There is real-world precedent for using the apostrophe, or something
that looks like it, as a digit separator.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_mark#Digit_grouping
Apparently it's common in Italy and Switzerland, and the Unicode
DECIMAL SEPARATOR KEY SYMBOL U+2396 resembles an apostrophe.
(My own preference is the underscore, but that conflicts with an
existing C++ feature.)
--
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 | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-10 04:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfn8u8elc37.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #69659 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes: > Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> writes: >> Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> writes: > > [...] > >>> I don't know why you wouldn't just follow the C++14 choices on this: >>> Apostrophes, and repeated ones are not allowed. I think I'd have >>> liked underscores a bit better, but I've no problems with the >>> apostrophes (and those avoid some ambiguities). >> >> It's a ghastly decision. We can only hope that the C++ >> choice doesn't come back around and get rammed down the >> throats of the C community. Bleah. > > There is real-world precedent for using the apostrophe, or > something that looks like it, as a digit separator. [snip > elaboration] I acknowledge that, but that doesn't make it a good choice in this context, where there are other considerations. C is not like a natural language (such as those mentioned). > (My own preference is the underscore, but that conflicts with > an existing C++ feature.) All the more reason to hasten the divergence of C and C++. The C language shouldn't have to pay the price of C++'s design mistakes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-10 12:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lna8sunj8s.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #70152 |
Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
>> Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
>>> Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> writes:
>> [...]
>>
>>>> I don't know why you wouldn't just follow the C++14 choices on this:
>>>> Apostrophes, and repeated ones are not allowed. I think I'd have
>>>> liked underscores a bit better, but I've no problems with the
>>>> apostrophes (and those avoid some ambiguities).
>>>
>>> It's a ghastly decision. We can only hope that the C++
>>> choice doesn't come back around and get rammed down the
>>> throats of the C community. Bleah.
>>
>> There is real-world precedent for using the apostrophe, or
>> something that looks like it, as a digit separator. [snip
>> elaboration]
>
> I acknowledge that, but that doesn't make it a good
> choice in this context, where there are other
> considerations. C is not like a natural language
> (such as those mentioned).
>
>> (My own preference is the underscore, but that conflicts with
>> an existing C++ feature.)
>
> All the more reason to hasten the divergence of C and C++.
> The C language shouldn't have to pay the price of C++'s
> design mistakes.
And you still haven't said *why* you dislike the idea of using the
apostrophe as a digit separator.
--
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 | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-22 05:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnlhbyhd51.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #70189 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes: > Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> writes: >> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes: >>> Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> writes: >>>> Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> writes: >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>>> I don't know why you wouldn't just follow the C++14 choices on this: >>>>> Apostrophes, and repeated ones are not allowed. I think I'd have >>>>> liked underscores a bit better, but I've no problems with the >>>>> apostrophes (and those avoid some ambiguities). >>>> >>>> It's a ghastly decision. We can only hope that the C++ >>>> choice doesn't come back around and get rammed down the >>>> throats of the C community. Bleah. >>> >>> There is real-world precedent for using the apostrophe, or >>> something that looks like it, as a digit separator. [snip >>> elaboration] >> >> I acknowledge that, but that doesn't make it a good >> choice in this context, where there are other >> considerations. C is not like a natural language >> (such as those mentioned). >> >>> (My own preference is the underscore, but that conflicts with >>> an existing C++ feature.) >> >> All the more reason to hasten the divergence of C and C++. >> The C language shouldn't have to pay the price of C++'s >> design mistakes. > > And you still haven't said *why* you dislike the idea of using the > apostrophe as a digit separator. The natural choice in C for a numeric separator character is underscore. I think a lot of the reasons for preferring underscore to apostrophe are obvious, but let me list some: Underscore does a better job of providing visual separation (because there is only blank space in the regular character area). An apostrophe might be mistakenly read for a digit (eg, 1) on a casual reading (and depending on font). The chance of misreading an underscore for a digit is much lower. In proportional fonts, it often is the case that digits are all the same width. There's a fairly good chance that underscore will have the same width as a digit, but apostrophe almost certainly will not, leading to potential alignment problems. (Admittedly, this is not relevant very often for program source code. But I think it is relevant often enough to mention it.) Using underscore as a numeric separator character in other languages, my experience is that having multiple separators together (mostly two, occasionally three) is helpful writing (ie, for later reading) long numbers. The C++ apostrophe separator doesn't allow that (and sensibly so, since allowing more than one would lead to other problems). Last but not least, using underscore as a separator fits easily into existing tools, since underscore is already allowed as a character in numeric pre-processing tokens. Using apostrophe instead is more disruptive. Note that we're not just talking about C compilers here. There are lots of tools that process C source code, and those would need to be updated. The changes needed for underscore are probably mostly done already; the changes needed for apostrophe are much larger. On the other side of the scale is the C++ rule, whose sole virtue is that it doesn't cause other problems in C++. I just don't find that motivation at all compelling for C, especially considering the attitude of the C++ community regarding C++ compatibility with current C features.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-22 19:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mts4s0$2ff$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #71092 |
On 22/09/2015 13:06, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes: >> And you still haven't said *why* you dislike the idea of using the >> apostrophe as a digit separator. > > The natural choice in C for a numeric separator character is > underscore. I think a lot of the reasons for preferring > underscore to apostrophe are obvious, but let me list some: > > Underscore does a better job of providing visual separation > (because there is only blank space in the regular character > area). > > An apostrophe might be mistakenly read for a digit (eg, 1) > on a casual reading (and depending on font). The chance > of misreading an underscore for a digit is much lower. I've never found that. Although I suppose you can always deliberately look for a font where the confusion can arise. I've just tested my ancient typewriter (which needs large apostrophes to spread the pressure) and there was no such problem. If you worry about this sort of thing, you can also worry about 0s and Os, ls and 1s, 4s and As, and so on. You can also mistakenly type - instead of _ and it would not be a syntax error. > In proportional fonts, it often is the case that digits are all > the same width. There's a fairly good chance that underscore > will have the same width as a digit, but apostrophe almost > certainly will not, leading to potential alignment problems. > (Admittedly, this is not relevant very often for program > source code. But I think it is relevant often enough to > mention it.) I sometimes want to use leading zeros for the same sorts of reasons. But I can't do that. > Using underscore as a numeric separator character in other > languages, my experience is that having multiple separators > together (mostly two, occasionally three) is helpful writing > (ie, for later reading) long numbers. The C++ apostrophe > separator doesn't allow that (and sensibly so, since > allowing more than one would lead to other problems). What sort of problems? (I can use consecutive apostrophes and it seems to work fine.) > Last but not least, using underscore as a separator fits > easily into existing tools, since underscore is already > allowed as a character in numeric pre-processing tokens. > Using apostrophe instead is more disruptive. Note that > we're not just talking about C compilers here. There are > lots of tools that process C source code, and those would > need to be updated. The changes needed for underscore > are probably mostly done already; the changes needed for > apostrophe are much larger. Outside C, I use both _ and ' (as well as `). I prefer the apostrophes because they are not shifted characters on my keyboard. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-02 15:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnk2tdi9ow.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #66685 |
Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 02/08/2015 12:37, David Brown wrote:
>> On 26/07/15 05:17, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>> Given how small a change this is to the language, it would not be
>> difficult to add support for 0b binary literals to existing C compilers
>> (Bart said it took merely a few minutes for him - even with
>> documentation, test cases, etc., it is not a big change).
>
> Well, I took a short cut by just duplicating the hex handling code, and
> modifying that - by removing support for 2-9, A-F and a-f.
And, I trust, by multiplying by 2 rather than by 16. 8-)}
[...]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-02 15:45 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnsi81ia2m.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #66683 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
[...]
> No one is asking for support for binary literals in printf, scanf, or
> any other library functions (conversion to binary for output is simply
> enough to do "manually" when needed).
Well, I am. I favor adding 0b integer constants to the language *and*
adding corresponding support to the library.
--
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 | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-03 09:40 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <mpn5pu$9ot$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #66753 |
On 03/08/15 00:45, Keith Thompson wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > [...] >> No one is asking for support for binary literals in printf, scanf, or >> any other library functions (conversion to binary for output is simply >> enough to do "manually" when needed). > > Well, I am. I favor adding 0b integer constants to the language *and* > adding corresponding support to the library. > A few people here also have asked for them to be added to the library. I agree that this would be consistent, and consistency is usually a good idea. The disadvantage is that adding 0b support to the library is a good deal more effort than adding it to the language (which has been shown to be almost trivial) - Tim is right to point out some of the costs of adding library support for binary. And who would use printf, scanf, etc., support for binary? The main users of binary literals would be embedded users, who have very little interest in the library support. I am sure there would be /some/ people who would use it, but Tim's cost/benefit concerns are very different for library support than for binary literals in the source code.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-24 11:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnh9noy1fg.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #66771 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > On 03/08/15 00:45, Keith Thompson wrote: >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> [...] >>> No one is asking for support for binary literals in printf, scanf, or >>> any other library functions (conversion to binary for output is simply >>> enough to do "manually" when needed). >> >> Well, I am. I favor adding 0b integer constants to the language *and* >> adding corresponding support to the library. > > A few people here also have asked for them to be added to the > library. I agree that this would be consistent, and consistency is > usually a good idea. The disadvantage is that adding 0b support to > the library is a good deal more effort than adding it to the language > (which has been shown to be almost trivial) - Tim is right to point > out some of the costs of adding library support for binary. [snip] There are costs either way. If binary constants are added to both the language and the library, then there are costs associated with changing library behavior. If binary constants are added to the language but not the library, then there is a cost associated with reducing the conceptual integrity of the language (eg, violates the Law of Least Astonishment). IMO the conceptual integrity cost is the higher of the two (and I admit it is very hard to measure). But I think it's fair to say the conceptual integrity cost is at least comparable to the cost of changing the library, and so must not be neglected.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-04 11:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <55c09c2f.7188937@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #66753 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > [...] > > No one is asking for support for binary literals in printf, scanf, or > > any other library functions (conversion to binary for output is simply > > enough to do "manually" when needed). > > Well, I am. I favor adding 0b integer constants to the language *and* > adding corresponding support to the library. Seconded. And if I may ask for another, please, sir? Can we also have the option, suggested in another thread, for in- and outputting it using other symbols than 1 and 0? Particularly when coupled with Unicode (or even simple Extended ASCIIs which include crosses and checks; or even ASCII itself with space and 'X'!) this could be rather useful for outputting patterns of flags. I'm thinking database lists, here, where e.g. the HR manager, typically hostile to anything that looks technical, would look askance at a list of employees that contained a slab of 001001011's, but if the columns of employee bonus flags were included as " X X XX", it would be acceptable. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-04 09:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln4mkfghha.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #66847 |
raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes:
> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>> [...]
>> > No one is asking for support for binary literals in printf, scanf, or
>> > any other library functions (conversion to binary for output is simply
>> > enough to do "manually" when needed).
>>
>> Well, I am. I favor adding 0b integer constants to the language *and*
>> adding corresponding support to the library.
>
> Seconded.
>
> And if I may ask for another, please, sir? Can we also have the option,
> suggested in another thread, for in- and outputting it using other
> symbols than 1 and 0?
> Particularly when coupled with Unicode (or even simple Extended ASCIIs
> which include crosses and checks; or even ASCII itself with space and
> 'X'!) this could be rather useful for outputting patterns of flags. I'm
> thinking database lists, here, where e.g. the HR manager, typically
> hostile to anything that looks technical, would look askance at a list
> of employees that contained a slab of 001001011's, but if the columns of
> employee bonus flags were included as " X X XX", it would be
> acceptable.
That could be done in code by using sprintf to create a string of 0s and
1s and then looping over them to change them to spaces and Xs.
If you can persuade the committee to add your idea to the standard I
won't object, but I personally don't think it carries its weight.
For one thing, it seems insufficiently flexible. Sure, sometimes you
want to print text consisting of spaces and Xs, but restricting the
number of characters to the number of bits in the widest integer type
(typically 64) seems arbitrary.
--
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 | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-09 13:33 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <55c75594.15703765@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #66868 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes: > > And if I may ask for another, please, sir? Can we also have the option, > > suggested in another thread, for in- and outputting it using other > > symbols than 1 and 0? > > Particularly when coupled with Unicode (or even simple Extended ASCIIs > > which include crosses and checks; or even ASCII itself with space and > > 'X'!) this could be rather useful for outputting patterns of flags. I'm > > thinking database lists, here, where e.g. the HR manager, typically > > hostile to anything that looks technical, would look askance at a list > > of employees that contained a slab of 001001011's, but if the columns of > > employee bonus flags were included as " X X XX", it would be > > acceptable. > > That could be done in code by using sprintf to create a string of 0s and > 1s and then looping over them to change them to spaces and Xs. Sure, but (at least IYAM) such code would be so common that it would be natural to make the library do it - _if_ we're making it print binaries in the first place. > If you can persuade the committee to add your idea to the standard I > won't object, but I personally don't think it carries its weight. > > For one thing, it seems insufficiently flexible. Sure, sometimes you > want to print text consisting of spaces and Xs, but restricting the > number of characters to the number of bits in the widest integer type > (typically 64) seems arbitrary. Not text, flags. And the flags come in units of CHAR_BIT anyway. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 10:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfntwr7tomc.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #66683 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > (I've been on holiday for a week or so - my apologies if anything I > write here covers points already raised by others, which I haven't yet > read.) > > On 26/07/15 05:17, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> >>> On 10/07/15 19:19, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 24/05/15 16:44, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I see no reason to make any of these changes. A binary base >>>>>> isn't useful because the lengths involved make it hard to >>>>>> see just what the value is (and is error prone to write). >>>>> >>>>> Binary constants of the format 0b0110 made it into C compilers and the >>>>> C++ standards because they are very useful, >>>> >>>> C++ has made lots of decisions which are IMO bad ones. So I guess >>>> I'm not surprised to see another one. >>> >>> That sounds as though you are saying that because binary constants >>> were added to C++, they must be a bad idea (in your humble opinion, >>> of course). >> >> I don't know why you would think that. It isn't what I said. >> Certainly it is not what I meant. > > I can agree that you did not /write/ exactly that - but you > /imply/ that you see C++'s introduction of 0b literals as a good > reason to be sceptical to including them in C, simply because (in > your eyes) C++ has record for introducing bad ideas. You are misunderstanding my comments. I implied no such thing. > (Arguably the fact that C++ supports them makes them less > necessary in C - people who really need binary constants can drop > C and go to C++ instead.) > >>> We have 0b00110 constants in C++ and as en extension on many C >>> compilers precisely because it was useful to /users/. The history >>> of implementation is easy to follow: >>> >>> avr-gcc developers added it because the users and the AVR gcc >>> library developers wanted it. (The AVR is an 8-bit microcontroller, >>> with a gcc port.). It got wider adoption into mainline gcc, and was >>> copied by clang. The C++ standards committee were asked to include >>> it for the benefit of embedded developers - they saw that it was >>> already implemented in mainstream tools, it is useful and is used in >>> practice, and causes no harm to include it. So they added it to >>> their standards. >>> >>> A number of other embedded compilers also support it - either before >>> or after its support in gcc. >> >> I understand that people wanted it, and some compilers put it in >> because it's easy if all you have to think about is taking the >> constants in program source. That isn't the same thing as saying >> it's useful, or that the benefits are worth the cost. > > First, people wanted them because they /are/ useful to embedded > developers. I don't accept this assertion without some sort of objective supporting evidence. > The people who asked for them were people who write > code for embedded systems, and who had to use hex or decimal > literals where binary literals would be neater and clearer. There > were also people who had found similar features useful on other > compilers, or used headers full of macros like "#define B00000001 > 0x01". > > No one is claiming that binary literals are essential, nor that > they are used a lot - but sometimes they can be very useful in > writing clearer and neater code. > > So please let us put this one to rest - they /are/ a useful > feature, people want them, and people use them (since they are > already implemented in many embedded compilers). > > And there can be no doubt that it would be better for the people > that use binary literals, and the compilers that support them, for > them to be made part of newer C standards as they are in newer C++ > standards. The question is how useful, and at what cost, and what are the comparisons with alternatives. > Given how small a change this is to the language, it would not be > difficult to add support for 0b binary literals to existing C > compilers (Bart said it took merely a few minutes for him - even > with documentation, test cases, etc., it is not a big change). > Most serious C compilers these days are part of a compiler suite > supporting C++ as well - sooner or later they will have binary > literal support anyway. And I have explained in several places that there are other costs that are more significant. > Ian gave a link showing the C++ proposal for adding 0b binary > literals, which shows the minor changes needed to the C++ > standards to support them. There is no reason to expect that > changes to the C standards would be any more dramatic. I read it. First it wasn't an argument that they should be added, just a description of what the changes should be. Second the attitude of the C++ community towards new language features is markedly different from that of the C community. Third because of other features in C++ the respective considerations in the two languages are quite a bit different. So that document doesn't make the case for making a change to C. > No one is asking for support for binary literals in printf, scanf, > or any other library functions (conversion to binary for output is > simply enough to do "manually" when needed). That's wrong - some people have asked for such support, if binary constants were added to the language; based on that I think not adding such support would be a bad choice for the C community generally. > There would be no conflict with any existing code. > > Thus I think it is pretty clear that the costs are minimal. It is > hard to imagine a change to the language with lower costs. You keep saying that. And I keep saying in response let's see some objective and quantitative evidence. > So even if the change only benefits a fraction of C programmers, > it is useful to them, cost-free to other users, and minimal cost > to compiler writers and the C standards committee. That sounds to > me like benefits that are worth the cost. Opinions are worth nothing here. Do you have nothing better? > (And remember that the C++ committee agree on that score, and I > presume they did a better cost/benefit analysis than either you or > I.) First, they agree for C++, which has different considerations. Second, considering the track record for C++ language features, I don't especially see any reason to assume they did a good job. In particular the C++ community seems to assign zero weight to the cost of language complexity, which I think most people would agree is at odds with the attitude of the C community. >>> Of course, since /you/ think it is a bad idea, everyone else is >>> clearly wrong. >> >> There's no reason to be sarcastic. If we have a difference of >> opinion, we can explore that difference in a civilized way. > > I have yet to hear anything concrete from you other than that you > think binary literals are a bad idea. You have offered no > justification for claims that they are not useful, nor any > justification for claims that they would be costly. I am not > asking for any references or statistics - a short reasoning would > be enough to get started. First, I have given some reasons for both of those. Second, and more important, let me say this again in all capitals - THE BURDEN IS ON THOSE PROPOSING A LANGUAGE CHANGE TO JUSTIFY THE CHANGE. It's your job to convince other people, not the other way around. >>>>> particularly in embedded programming where we live in a world of >>>>> bits for device registers, IO ports, and so on. [snip >>>>> elaboration] >>>> >>>> I don't find this motivation convincing. ISTM that in such >>>> cases one would want to define symbolic names for the various >>>> masks, etc, and use those rather than putting binary constants >>>> everywhere, in which cases the exact form of the constant >>>> used is of much less importance. (Surely you don't mean to >>>> suggest that embedded programmers are guilty of bad programming >>>> practices?) Moreover I think it's likely that the documentation >>>> that describes such fields gives their values in octal, decimal, >>>> or hex rather than binary, excepting perhaps for masks which >>>> are better described in terms of width and position than using >>>> a long binary constant. >>> >>> I think that like many programmers (including me), you believe >>> your own niche to be the most important, and extrapolate from it >>> to other areas of programming. You are not an embedded systems >>> developer, and in particular you don't work with small >>> microcontrollers. You don't read datasheets, you don't work with >>> these small systems, you don't write libraries or headers for >>> them, and you don't live in a world of bits and bytes. So please >>> don't try to make sweeping statements about when binary constants >>> may or may not be useful to embedded programmers. >> >> An ad hominem argument. It's insulting and presumptuous of you >> to tell me what my background and experience is. Furthermore >> it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand, unless you are more >> interested in scoring debate points than in understanding the >> truth of the matter. > > I have been programming small embedded systems for over 20 years, > in C, assembly, and a little C++. I have read (as in close to > "cover to cover") many hundreds of datasheets. I have worked > seriously with perhaps a dozen different microcontroller and cpu > architectures. It is certainly possible that you have worked with > embedded systems - as you say, I don't know your background and > experiences, and "embedded" is a very wide field. (For example, > Ian also works with embedded systems - > yet I think there is quite a difference in the sorts of systems we > usually work with, and the types of development we usually do.) > > But I am fed up with /you/ telling /me/ about small systems > embedded development, and how small systems developers want to > write their code, and how our datasheets and documents are > written. You have misunderstood my comments. I haven't said anything about any of these. (I did make a comment about documents generally, but not about documents relating to embedded development in particular.) > /I/ am telling /you/ that datasheets use binary > regularly, and they almost never use octal. Okay, for the sake of discussion I will accept that as given. > I am telling you that > embedded programmers like to be able to write binary literals on > occasion, and many find them useful in writing clearer code. > > If another experienced embedded programmer (such as Ian) > contradicts this, it is worth listening to him. But with all due > respect for your knowledge and experience of programming, you > cannot speak for small systems embedded developers. I'm not speaking for them, nor am I trying to. And actually what they want or what they think is not especially interesting, because it doesn't prove anything one way or the other. What are the actual productivity gains, and how do those compare to alternatives? What people imagine and what is objectively true often are quite different - that's why I'm looking for the latter, not the former. >>> The reality is that datasheets will use binary, decimal or >>> hexadecimal as appropriate - with register fields being usually >>> either binary or hexadecimal. (Octal is almost never used. I can >>> only remember seeing it in the context of an ASCII character set >>> on a small display, and that was a decade or two ago.) >> >> If you have facts and evidence to present, by all means present >> them. Sweeping generalizations are meaningless. > > You want me to provide links for datasheets that use binary? > > Here's a couple of random microcontroller reference manuals. > > <http://www.atmel.com/Images/doc8077.pdf> > <http://cache.freescale.com/files/32bit/doc/ref_manual/KL03P24M48SF0RM.pdf> As above I am willing to stipulate this for the sake of furthering the discussion. > Or do you want me to prove that octal is almost never used? Given the above stipulation I think it's fair to say that this question is moot. >>> And the reality is that programmers will sometimes want to use >>> hexadecimal constants in their code, and sometimes decimal, and >>> sometimes binary, and sometimes using a shift notation such as (1u >>> << 4). And sometimes they will want to give the constants a name >>> or enum value in a header file or at the start of the C file, and >>> sometimes they will want to use the constant directly in the code. >>> Sometimes that might be "bad" programming practice - but sometimes >>> it might be good practice. >> >> Even assuming all that is true, and I'm not sure it is, that >> doesn't excuse not looking at the costs or comparing the costs >> against the marginal utility gained. Have you, or has anyone >> for that matter, even made an effort to estimate the marginal >> utility in programmer time or program development cost? If the >> argument is that it's valuable then we should try to find out >> what the value is, in objective terms. > > Please tell us your experience in this area, and how often you > have worked with low-level and bare-metal programming on small > microcontrollers. That will help us judge the value of your gut > feelings about how useful binary literals may or may not be to > programmers in this area. I have no interest in judging gut feelings. My opinion, or your opinion, or anyone's opinion, is not what is needed here. > As for the supposed costs for implementing 0b binary literals, I > can only point out /again/ that they are already implemented on > many major compilers, either as an extension in C or as a > standards requirement in C++, and that the costs for > standardisation in C++ were minimal. Same comments as given above. > I am fully in agreement with you that any change requires a > consideration and balance between the usefulness of the change and > its costs. The disagreement is that you /imagine/ binary literals > to be of little real use, while I /know/ they are used in the real > world of embedded programming, and that you /imagine/ them to have > high costs, while I /know/ they are already implemented at low > cost. First, if you don't have any objective supporting evidence, what you "know" is of no value. Second, what we are interested in is not the cost of adding binary literals to one compiler but the TCO for making a language change. Somehow the people proposing the change keep ignoring the distinction between those two, even though it has been pointed out repeatedly. > Trying to turn all this into an objective, quantifiable cost/benefit > analysis with statistics of man-hours saved or cost is a worthy goal > in theory - but in practice it is a waste of time in this case. It > would take far longer merely to specify such a study properly than it > would to simply add the required few lines to the next C standards > draft. Remember, the equivalent C++ proposal document was 3 pages - > the C proposal would be similar. You think it's a waste of time. I say if someone won't even make even some effort to provide some sort of objective evidence their proposal should be rejected out of hand. So if what we're talking about is just opinion, you are welcome to yours but it hasn't changed mine. >> Related to that, it is my pleasure to pass along a link from a >> posting by Glen Herrmannsfeldt, to a talk about these kinds of >> questions. You might find it interesting; I certainly did. >> >> https://www.cs.washington.edu/events/colloquia/search/details?id=2594 > > I haven't watched it yet, but I will do so. > >>> So please just accept the reality that 0b binary constants are a >>> useful feature, and would be a worthwhile addition to the C >>> standards that would be welcomed by many embedded programmers, and >>> happily ignored by most non-embedded programmers. >> >> If it's so important to you for binary constants to be added to >> C, why don't you put in the effort of doing a serious >> costs/benefits investigation, considering all the ramifications, >> rather than just huffing and puffing? When considering new >> language features to be added to C, the burden of proof is >> generally understood to be on those proposing the change. And >> that is as it should be. > > It is not important for embedded programmers that these are added > to the C standards - embedded programmers already have 0b binary > literals in their compilers. It is important for the C standards > committee - they have to follow what happens in the real world, or > face increasing irrelevance. Well if it isn't important, just drop it. I'm okay with some people deciding C is no longer relevant. That will make it easier for those of us who still think it is. > If we were to ask about 0b binary literals in comp.arch.embedded, > where there are a great deal more practical-minded embedded > developers, we would see several answers. There would be those > people that use them, because they are useful and they work with > their toolchains. There would be people who would want to use > them, but unfortunately their toolchains don't support them. > There would be people who had never thought about them, but now > will start to use them. There would be people who would like to > use them, but their coding standard mandates strict ANSI C (or > whatever). And there will be people who think they are a nice > idea even though they don't use them personally. > > I think it would be very unlikely to find people who thought they > were a bad idea, or who would only use them if they get added to > the C standards. Once again, AFAIAC personal opinions carry no weight in this matter. It seems like that bothers you. Does it? If so, why does it? > It is the C standards committee that should be worried that people > are using the "gnu11" standard rather than C11 standard. Perhaps so, but I doubt very much that binary constants are the most important consideration there. Furthermore, since C explicitly allows extensions, there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with some poeple use gnu11 as far as WG14 is concerned.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-06 22:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <msiakh$mjn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #69630 |
On 06/09/2015 18:59, Tim Rentsch wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> Trying to turn all this into an objective, quantifiable cost/benefit >> analysis with statistics of man-hours saved or cost is a worthy goal >> in theory - but in practice it is a waste of time in this case. It >> would take far longer merely to specify such a study properly than it >> would to simply add the required few lines to the next C standards >> draft. Remember, the equivalent C++ proposal document was 3 pages - >> the C proposal would be similar. > > You think it's a waste of time. I say if someone won't even make > even some effort to provide some sort of objective evidence their > proposal should be rejected out of hand. So if what we're > talking about is just opinion, you are welcome to yours but it > hasn't changed mine. Always a wide range of opinions in this group. At one end, adding binary literals and separators is apparently such a vast, costly exercise that committees need to be formed to report on whether it is worthwhile doing so. And this only needs to be done once per compiler. At the other, to obtain a library consisting of a .h file, a .a library file, and/or a .dll file, there is nothing wrong with being forced to download 5600 files of msys, and up to 24000 files of a gcc compiler if you don't already have it, in order to do so. Even though this needs to be done once per /computer/. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-22 03:33 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfntwqmhhg0.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #69677 |
Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 06/09/2015 18:59, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> >>> Trying to turn all this into an objective, quantifiable cost/benefit >>> analysis with statistics of man-hours saved or cost is a worthy goal >>> in theory - but in practice it is a waste of time in this case. It >>> would take far longer merely to specify such a study properly than it >>> would to simply add the required few lines to the next C standards >>> draft. Remember, the equivalent C++ proposal document was 3 pages - >>> the C proposal would be similar. >> >> You think it's a waste of time. I say if someone won't even make >> even some effort to provide some sort of objective evidence their >> proposal should be rejected out of hand. So if what we're >> talking about is just opinion, you are welcome to yours but it >> hasn't changed mine. > > Always a wide range of opinions in this group. > > At one end, adding binary literals and separators is apparently such a > vast, costly exercise that committees need to be formed to report on > whether it is worthwhile doing so. And this only needs to be done once > per compiler. > > At the other, to obtain a library consisting of a .h file, a .a > library file, and/or a .dll file, there is nothing wrong with being > forced to download 5600 files of msys, and up to 24000 files of a gcc > compiler if you don't already have it, in order to do so. Even though > this needs to be done once per /computer/. Making arguments like this one doesn't help your case. Do you really not get that?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-07 13:44 +1200 |
| Message-ID | <d548g8FndfhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #69630 |
Tim Rentsch wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> >> First, people wanted them because they /are/ useful to embedded >> developers. > > I don't accept this assertion without some sort of objective > supporting evidence. If they weren't useful, why would people want them? Do you want to see the feature requests sent to compiler vendors? If not and asking for something isn't sufficient evidence, what is? >> No one is asking for support for binary literals in printf, scanf, >> or any other library functions (conversion to binary for output is >> simply enough to do "manually" when needed). > > That's wrong - some people have asked for such support, if binary > constants were added to the language; based on that I think not > adding such support would be a bad choice for the C community > generally. I don't accept this assertion without some sort of objective supporting evidence... >> There would be no conflict with any existing code. >> >> Thus I think it is pretty clear that the costs are minimal. It is >> hard to imagine a change to the language with lower costs. > > You keep saying that. And I keep saying in response let's see > some objective and quantitative evidence. Try asking the compiler vendors? Some of them are in the business of selling tools to embedded developers. They will add features that drive sales and they won't add those that don't: just look at their collective reluctance to fully support C99. >> So even if the change only benefits a fraction of C programmers, >> it is useful to them, cost-free to other users, and minimal cost >> to compiler writers and the C standards committee. That sounds to >> me like benefits that are worth the cost. > > Opinions are worth nothing here. Do you have nothing better? The widespread inclusion of binary literals in embedded compilers? >> (And remember that the C++ committee agree on that score, and I >> presume they did a better cost/benefit analysis than either you or >> I.) > > First, they agree for C++, which has different considerations. > Second, considering the track record for C++ language features, > I don't especially see any reason to assume they did a good job. They may not have done a good job in your non-user's opinion, but that opinion isn't shared by C++ developers and compiler writers. From my perspective the C++ committee listens to programmers, where the C committee imposes features very few programmers want. The situation improved with C11, but that may have been too little too late. > In particular the C++ community seems to assign zero weight to > the cost of language complexity, which I think most people would > agree is at odds with the attitude of the C community. Many of the recent additions reduce complexity. That was one of the aims of C++11 and c++14 goes further. You won't see any discussions regarding which is the better standard like we see here in C++ forums. The C++ community embraces the new standards because they give us what we have been asking for. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-26 08:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfn4mihgovy.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #69722 |
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: > Tim Rentsch wrote: >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > [snip] I read through the other comments, and wanted to respond just to those below. >> In particular the C++ community seems to assign zero weight to >> the cost of language complexity, which I think most people would >> agree is at odds with the attitude of the C community. > > Many of the recent additions reduce complexity. That was one of the > aims of C++11 and c++14 goes further. I'm glad to hear that was a consideration, and tentatively amend my previous statement accordingly. Of course it may still be the case that C++ is overly complicated, but that's a separate issue which I think is better left alone in the context of the current discussion. > You won't see any discussions regarding which is the better standard > like we see here in C++ forums. The C++ community embraces the new > standards because they give us what we have been asking for. C developers choose (to code to) different versions of the C standard for a variety of reasons. It is partly in recognition of this that WG14 is more conservative with regards to what additions or changes are made.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-27 12:01 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <d6omdkFqr3pU9@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #71222 |
Tim Rentsch wrote: > Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: > >> You won't see any discussions regarding which is the better standard >> like we see here in C++ forums. The C++ community embraces the new >> standards because they give us what we have been asking for. > > C developers choose (to code to) different versions of the C > standard for a variety of reasons. It is partly in recognition > of this that WG14 is more conservative with regards to what > additions or changes are made. Isn't that argument self-contradictory? If WG14 were more conservative, C99 would have been more widely accepted and C developers wouldn't be faced with the choice of writing modern C or portable C. The two would be the same. -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-04 09:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfntwq68uuq.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #71238 |
Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: > Tim Rentsch wrote: >> Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: >> >>> You won't see any discussions regarding which is the better standard >>> like we see here in C++ forums. The C++ community embraces the new >>> standards because they give us what we have been asking for. >> >> C developers choose (to code to) different versions of the C >> standard for a variety of reasons. It is partly in recognition >> of this that WG14 is more conservative with regards to what >> additions or changes are made. > > Isn't that argument self-contradictory? It doesn't seem contradictory to me. Recognizing that there will be somewhat large time overlaps where multiple versions of the standard are being used, I think it's understandable and reasonable to follow a path of evolving the language slowly. In particular WG14 is very reluctant to make changes that would alter the semantics of existing code. > If WG14 were more conservative, C99 would have been more widely > accepted and C developers wouldn't be faced with the choice of writing > modern C or portable C. The two would be the same. I don't think this implication follows, because there are lots of different forces affecting the decision to move to a new version of the language, not just how much the language has changed. But in any case I believe you are using "more conservative" here in a different sense than I was. I meant only that WG14 is more conservative than the corresponding group for C++. That still leaves a lot of room to change the language significantly (if that is what is thought appropriate).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-10-05 17:32 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <d7ecqnFehaeU13@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #71821 |
Tim Rentsch wrote: > Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: > >> Tim Rentsch wrote: >>> Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> writes: >>> >>>> You won't see any discussions regarding which is the better standard >>>> like we see here in C++ forums. The C++ community embraces the new >>>> standards because they give us what we have been asking for. >>> >>> C developers choose (to code to) different versions of the C >>> standard for a variety of reasons. It is partly in recognition >>> of this that WG14 is more conservative with regards to what >>> additions or changes are made. >> >> Isn't that argument self-contradictory? > > It doesn't seem contradictory to me. Recognizing that there > will be somewhat large time overlaps where multiple versions > of the standard are being used, I think it's understandable > and reasonable to follow a path of evolving the language > slowly. In particular WG14 is very reluctant to make changes > that would alter the semantics of existing code. Something binary literals wouldn't do... I agree evolving the language slowly is the best approach, but this wasn't what happened with C99: it was too big a change for many conservative users to accept. >> If WG14 were more conservative, C99 would have been more widely >> accepted and C developers wouldn't be faced with the choice of writing >> modern C or portable C. The two would be the same. > > I don't think this implication follows, because there are lots of > different forces affecting the decision to move to a new version > of the language, not just how much the language has changed. But > in any case I believe you are using "more conservative" here in > a different sense than I was. I meant only that WG14 is more > conservative than the corresponding group for C++. That still > leaves a lot of room to change the language significantly (if > that is what is thought appropriate). A significant factor affecting the decision to move to a new version of the language is vendor support. WG14 may be more conservative than WG21, but that didn't help them to produce a universally accepted standard... -- Ian Collins
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 29 of 37 — ← Prev page 1 … 27 28 [29] 30 31 … 37 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web