Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #97546 > unrolled thread
| Started by | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-26 12:49 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-12-01 12:33 +0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 567 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
absence of max fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 12:49 -0800
absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 15:34 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 00:21 +0000
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 04:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-11-27 13:54 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 13:54 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-27 07:33 -0800
Re: absence of max Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-27 14:06 +0100
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-27 17:47 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 07:13 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-28 15:35 +0000
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 07:48 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 07:53 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 00:14 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 00:36 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 02:03 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-28 23:23 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-28 21:05 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-28 16:53 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 08:07 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 10:37 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 08:26 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 10:42 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 08:16 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 09:31 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 10:38 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 10:59 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 12:09 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 12:46 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 13:05 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 13:50 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 10:52 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 05:44 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 15:12 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 06:54 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-30 10:37 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 03:07 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-30 13:28 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 05:12 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-28 18:57 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 11:33 -0800
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-28 20:09 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 10:55 +0100
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 10:06 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 11:18 +0100
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 10:28 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 10:49 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 10:51 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 11:40 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 12:17 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 15:18 +0000
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 18:30 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 18:49 +0000
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-29 14:09 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-29 10:56 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-29 11:29 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 20:27 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 20:31 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-30 10:45 +0100
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-29 12:54 -0800
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-29 16:21 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 21:47 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 21:30 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-29 14:12 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 22:27 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 22:33 +0000
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-29 14:52 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-29 15:43 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 23:51 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 00:51 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-30 02:08 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-29 18:10 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 12:29 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-28 21:30 +0000
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 13:47 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 14:59 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 15:13 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 00:12 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 01:11 +0000
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 18:01 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 02:19 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-29 13:26 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 17:09 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 00:01 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 00:29 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 17:02 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 01:21 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 17:53 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-28 23:11 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 02:12 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 11:17 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-29 09:46 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 15:45 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-29 17:04 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-29 07:21 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 15:50 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-30 00:19 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 00:43 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-30 01:51 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-29 22:26 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 11:25 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 09:07 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 14:22 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-30 09:03 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 23:38 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-30 15:49 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 00:10 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-30 17:22 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 01:40 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-30 18:03 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 17:25 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 23:29 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 23:55 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-01 10:05 +0100
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-01 11:20 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 11:41 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-01 13:48 +0100
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 10:43 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-01 21:23 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 14:41 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-02 09:39 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 11:35 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-01 14:51 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 15:05 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 10:49 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 20:48 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-01 16:51 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-01 01:18 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 23:57 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-01 11:38 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-01 13:28 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-02 00:06 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-01 20:02 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-02 02:22 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-01 21:42 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 01:56 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 21:25 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 02:33 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-03 15:20 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-03 15:40 -0500
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-02 21:57 +1300
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 10:46 -0500
Re: absence of max asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-11-30 06:36 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 16:41 +0000
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-30 20:50 +1300
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 11:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-30 12:00 +0000
Re: absence of max James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-30 11:32 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-30 19:25 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 20:45 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-30 12:52 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-30 14:17 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-01 10:14 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 07:37 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-01 17:05 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 10:06 -0800
Re: absence of max James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-01 13:53 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 12:22 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-01 19:02 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-02 10:05 +0100
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-02 11:01 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-02 17:28 +0100
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-01 21:13 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 10:53 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 11:51 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 12:52 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 14:28 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 14:48 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 15:00 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-01 19:28 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-02 10:30 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 07:24 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 10:50 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 09:39 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-02 10:17 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-02 11:46 -0800
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-02 15:02 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 11:58 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-02 13:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 15:31 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 13:34 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 19:32 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-03 01:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 20:48 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 02:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 21:27 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 02:50 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 22:45 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-03 11:07 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-03 15:46 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-03 13:46 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 23:29 +0000
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-03 18:42 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 23:59 +0000
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 08:31 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-10 13:51 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-10 22:08 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-03 20:19 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-04 01:28 +0000
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 14:34 +1300
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-05 00:02 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-05 10:34 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 08:38 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-05 15:52 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 16:03 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-03 19:19 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-04 11:26 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 11:33 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-03 15:48 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-04 00:59 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-03 20:23 -0500
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-03 10:32 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-03 17:15 +0100
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-03 08:33 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-03 11:08 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 21:31 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-04 08:40 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-04 19:39 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-05 07:15 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 16:09 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-05 13:38 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-05 14:12 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 22:21 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-05 22:05 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 10:46 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-06 09:45 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 13:25 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-06 10:33 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 16:25 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-06 15:10 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 20:48 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-07 14:43 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 09:26 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-08 11:32 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 21:56 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-08 20:28 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:10 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 21:17 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:01 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 20:00 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 22:51 -0500
Re: absence of max cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2016-12-10 04:44 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-05 22:49 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-05 15:24 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 22:25 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 22:24 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-05 22:47 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 10:51 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-06 10:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 16:26 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-07 02:09 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 09:30 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 01:44 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 09:29 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 21:54 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:05 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 11:39 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:16 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 16:45 +0100
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-09 21:07 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 22:58 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-10 17:49 +0100
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-09 16:46 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 22:56 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-10 14:04 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-10 08:45 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-10 14:54 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 15:40 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-11 23:13 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 17:59 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 18:13 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:02 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-16 22:47 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 22:38 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 14:43 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-17 13:52 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 10:00 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 09:58 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 16:39 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 22:48 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-18 16:51 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 11:54 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-19 21:24 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 17:38 -0500
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-19 15:11 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 19:12 -0500
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-19 17:23 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 21:41 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-17 09:23 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 22:49 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-18 08:26 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 11:56 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-19 19:19 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 17:40 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-10 18:03 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 15:44 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-10 01:19 -0600
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 21:52 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:02 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-10 12:59 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 15:52 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 03:18 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 22:29 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 04:12 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:44 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-06 06:10 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 10:58 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-06 10:21 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-06 10:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 16:28 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-07 02:48 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 09:34 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 06:58 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 15:15 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 12:30 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 16:25 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 13:46 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-07 13:53 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 14:03 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-07 14:50 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 07:46 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-10 13:44 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-14 22:12 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 17:00 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 14:08 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 17:28 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 17:29 -0500
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-07 14:49 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 16:24 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-07 17:04 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 07:29 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-10 13:37 -0800
Re: absence of max me <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 14:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 02:19 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 02:07 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 09:36 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-08 16:22 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 10:52 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-08 08:11 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:08 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-08 12:50 -0800
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-09 10:14 +1300
Re: absence of max Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-12-08 22:17 +0100
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-09 10:21 +1300
Re: absence of max Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-12-08 22:24 +0100
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 13:06 +0100
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-09 21:15 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:05 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-10 03:22 -0600
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-10 15:12 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 15:57 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-12 00:13 -0600
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:48 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-10 14:11 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 15:59 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-11 23:18 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 17:59 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 18:18 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:04 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-16 22:48 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 22:39 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 14:45 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 10:01 -0500
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-17 11:27 -0800
People who confuse and jumble up the difference between past, present, and future (Was: absence of max) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-12-17 20:07 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:17 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:17 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:15 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 08:40 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 13:19 +0100
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 12:29 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 14:34 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:24 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 16:58 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:09 -0500
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-11 20:56 +1300
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-09 16:52 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 13:35 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 13:42 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 13:54 +0000
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 07:54 -0800
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-11 16:14 +0000
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 18:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-14 21:08 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:25 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:18 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 15:55 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:11 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:21 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-10 01:48 -0600
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 13:02 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:39 -0500
Re: absence of max cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2016-12-10 04:37 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-10 00:13 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 22:22 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:19 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-07 19:40 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 09:38 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-08 07:52 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 19:37 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-08 14:46 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-08 15:46 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-13 13:04 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-13 13:38 -0800
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-13 14:07 -0800
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-13 22:51 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-14 08:17 -0800
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-14 11:49 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-14 16:53 -0800
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-15 05:14 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-15 15:02 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-15 08:54 -0800
Re: absence of max raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-12-15 19:55 +0000
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-15 13:48 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-15 14:20 -0800
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-15 15:32 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-15 23:44 +0100
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-16 07:00 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-16 08:21 +0000
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-16 21:10 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-16 13:24 -0800
Re: absence of max "D. Aaron Sawyer" <aaron@110.net> - 2016-12-16 18:51 -0400
Re: absence of max raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-12-20 09:03 +0000
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-20 02:21 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-14 19:05 +0100
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-14 22:46 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-08 15:58 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 00:18 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-09 07:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-09 11:29 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 09:07 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-10 14:20 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 21:31 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:15 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-10 12:15 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 16:04 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:27 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 22:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-09 15:45 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:21 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:19 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-10 12:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 16:04 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 03:15 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 22:31 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 04:14 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:50 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 23:18 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:05 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-17 02:58 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 22:40 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 18:20 +0100
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 17:29 +0000
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 18:53 +0100
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 17:58 +0000
Re: absence of max cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2016-12-12 19:11 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-13 10:31 +0100
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-12 15:38 -0800
Re: absence of max raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-12-15 12:08 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:06 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-16 22:49 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 22:44 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 14:47 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 10:04 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 16:45 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 22:51 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-17 13:52 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 22:51 -0500
Re: absence of max Parity Error <kgf@quiscurat.net> - 2016-12-18 09:17 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:23 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-08 12:23 -0800
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 20:45 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:32 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 08:42 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:40 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 16:10 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:33 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-11 15:02 +0000
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-11 13:01 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 16:11 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-11 23:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 18:59 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 00:09 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 20:56 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 08:04 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:50 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-11 16:18 -0800
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-11 19:38 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 21:04 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 03:35 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:52 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 23:22 +0000
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-12 17:35 +1300
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:54 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 08:17 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 13:01 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 13:16 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 10:05 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 15:21 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:09 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-12 13:12 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 03:01 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 22:03 -0500
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-12 12:58 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:11 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-16 22:53 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 22:46 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 14:49 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 10:07 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 16:47 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 22:53 -0500
Re: absence of max Parity Error <kgf@quiscurat.net> - 2016-12-18 09:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 18:32 +0100
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-12 13:26 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 19:39 +0100
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-12 11:31 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 16:07 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-11 23:10 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 19:01 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 00:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 21:06 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 08:19 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 10:07 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 15:22 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:13 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-12 15:38 +0000
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-02 08:54 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-02 17:20 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 07:35 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-02 09:52 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 10:44 -0800
Re: absence of max James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-30 16:52 -0500
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-30 08:31 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-28 23:15 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 10:49 +0100
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-27 17:35 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-27 09:39 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-27 20:35 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 20:10 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-27 22:07 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 22:55 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-28 12:46 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-28 13:16 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-28 14:52 +0100
Re: absence of max jadill33@gmail.com - 2016-11-28 09:41 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 11:04 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 18:02 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-27 20:52 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 20:31 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 22:09 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-27 14:14 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 23:02 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-27 23:26 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 23:43 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-27 23:46 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-28 12:56 +0100
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-27 16:21 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-28 10:10 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Prince <tprince@computer.org> - 2016-11-27 07:40 -0500
absence of max asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-11-27 08:46 -0800
Re: absence of max fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 09:18 -0800
Re: absence of max asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-11-27 09:22 -0800
Re: absence of max fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 09:27 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 17:33 +0000
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 17:51 +0000
Re: absence of max Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-11-30 13:15 -0500
Re: absence of max "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 12:33 +0800
Page 13 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 29 Next page →
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 22:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2fu1b$9g0$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98616 |
On 12/9/2016 3:00 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes: > >> On 12/8/2016 4:17 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes: >>> <snip> >>>> In the real world, good programmers treated K&R as a standard, because >>>> it was the only thing close to a standard available. >>> <snip> >>>> But all of the good compilers did what K&R said. >>> >>> Did you see the quote I posted from K&R that said, explicitly, that they >>> should not do what you claim they did? >>> >>> <snip> >> >> I really don't care what you think you found from 1972. By 1985, C had >> matured considerably, and things had changed. > > You are stating that "all of the good compilers did what K&R said". I > agree. I quoted K&R to show that you are wrong about argument > conversions (and the text was not from 1972 by the way). > Once again you show you don't read very well. Quotes from the first version of K&R in 1972 were long superseded in 1985. But even then, it wasn't against K&R. Only your incorrect interpretation of what K&R printed. > <snip> >> Heck - you'd argue if I said the world was round, and show quotes from >> the flat Earth society. > > I showed quotes from the text /you/ said was the authoritative one. > Not the first edition I didn't. But we know you're arguing just to argue, aren't you? Stoopid idiot. I don't know why I keep trying to teach the pig to sing. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-10 04:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2g170$j28$2@reader1.panix.com> |
| In reply to | #98646 |
In article <o2fu1b$9g0$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org>, Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote: >[snip] > >Once again you show you don't read very well. Quotes from the first >version of K&R in 1972 were long superseded in 1985. The first version of K&R was published in 1978. The second edition in 1988 (ie after 1985). - Dan C.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 22:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87mvgagff0.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #98076 |
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes: > On 12/5/2016 10:15 AM, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: >> On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 6:39:24 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> C compiler support for function declarations came out about 1985, >>> IIRC. I think you mean function prototypes. C has always had function declarations. >>> My first compiler didn't have it around 1984, but it also wasn't >>> necessarily the latest. Rather, it was the cheapest, since I wasn't >>> doing any C programming at the time. Later I had to upgrade to a newer >>> compiler (around 1986? I don't remember for sure now) because I was >>> seeing more and more code which used the new method. >> >> I wonder if those early compilers supported the syntax of putting qualifiers >> in brackets, or when that came about as a widely-recognized feature? Early >> compilers didn't have any qualifiers, and prior to "restrict" the only >> important qualifier one could attach to arguments (as opposed to the things >> they would point to) would have been "volatile", and that would only be >> necessary in rather obscure circumstances. >> > > I honestly don't remember any more. > > What I do remember is ordering the source files in reverse of their call > order - main() at the bottom and functions above it. Never call a > function below you in the source file. And it became habit to load your > file in the editor and immediately go to the end so you could find main(). > > This was due to the lack of function declarations. C has always had function declarations. Some of what you write below suggest you are confusing plain declarations (which C has always had) with function prototypes which are more recent (though very old now). > If you did it this way, the compiler would have the function > definition before the function call, and could compare and, if > necessary, convert the parameter type in the call to the one in the > function. You don't need (and have never needed) the function definition to precede it's use. In old C, a function declaration does just as well -- it provides as much information to the compiler as a function definition does -- but neither a preceding declaration nor a preceding definition will allow the compiler to convert the arguments to match the parameter types. (The definition has more information in it, but the language rules mean that the compiler is not allowed to use it. Indeed, some very early C programs used the argument/parameter mismatch as a poor-person's union.) A function declaration that includes a prototype does provide the information required to convert argument types. That seems to be what you are talking about (backed-up by the dates -- they appears in compiler in the second half of the 1980s). <snip> > That's why I remember function declarations so well. It made > programming so much easier! :) You must mean prototypes here. That was the major improvement that arrived in C90 (though it was available in some compiler before that of course). -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 15:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ln7f7e3qp8.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #98103 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
[...]
> You don't need (and have never needed) the function definition to
> precede it's use. In old C, a function declaration does just as well --
> it provides as much information to the compiler as a function definition
> does -- but neither a preceding declaration nor a preceding definition
> will allow the compiler to convert the arguments to match the parameter
> types. (The definition has more information in it, but the language
> rules mean that the compiler is not allowed to use it. Indeed, some
> very early C programs used the argument/parameter mismatch as a
> poor-person's union.)
I'm not sure what the rules were (if any) in pre-ANSI C, but in C89 and
later calling an unprototyped function with an incorrect type and/or
number of arguments has undefined behavior. So in principle, a compiler
*could* generate code to convert the arguments to the expected type.
In practice, I don't know of any compilers that do so.
The correct solution, of course, is to use prototypes.
--
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 | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 22:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o25b0q$ubo$2@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98106 |
On 12/5/2016 6:24 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: > [...] >> You don't need (and have never needed) the function definition to >> precede it's use. In old C, a function declaration does just as well -- >> it provides as much information to the compiler as a function definition >> does -- but neither a preceding declaration nor a preceding definition >> will allow the compiler to convert the arguments to match the parameter >> types. (The definition has more information in it, but the language >> rules mean that the compiler is not allowed to use it. Indeed, some >> very early C programs used the argument/parameter mismatch as a >> poor-person's union.) > > I'm not sure what the rules were (if any) in pre-ANSI C, but in C89 and > later calling an unprototyped function with an incorrect type and/or > number of arguments has undefined behavior. So in principle, a compiler > *could* generate code to convert the arguments to the expected type. > > In practice, I don't know of any compilers that do so. > > The correct solution, of course, is to use prototypes. > Keith, they did if the function was defined, as I indicated above. But not otherwise. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 22:24 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o25avf$ubo$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98103 |
On 12/5/2016 5:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes: > >> On 12/5/2016 10:15 AM, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: >>> On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 6:39:24 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> C compiler support for function declarations came out about 1985, >>>> IIRC. > > I think you mean function prototypes. C has always had function > declarations. > If you call int foo(); with no parameters, etc. a function declaration, then yes. We didn't back then. >>>> My first compiler didn't have it around 1984, but it also wasn't >>>> necessarily the latest. Rather, it was the cheapest, since I wasn't >>>> doing any C programming at the time. Later I had to upgrade to a newer >>>> compiler (around 1986? I don't remember for sure now) because I was >>>> seeing more and more code which used the new method. >>> >>> I wonder if those early compilers supported the syntax of putting qualifiers >>> in brackets, or when that came about as a widely-recognized feature? Early >>> compilers didn't have any qualifiers, and prior to "restrict" the only >>> important qualifier one could attach to arguments (as opposed to the things >>> they would point to) would have been "volatile", and that would only be >>> necessary in rather obscure circumstances. >>> >> >> I honestly don't remember any more. >> >> What I do remember is ordering the source files in reverse of their call >> order - main() at the bottom and functions above it. Never call a >> function below you in the source file. And it became habit to load your >> file in the editor and immediately go to the end so you could find main(). >> >> This was due to the lack of function declarations. > > C has always had function declarations. Some of what you write below > suggest you are confusing plain declarations (which C has always had) > with function prototypes which are more recent (though very old now). > If you want to call them function declarations, fine. We didn't back then. >> If you did it this way, the compiler would have the function >> definition before the function call, and could compare and, if >> necessary, convert the parameter type in the call to the one in the >> function. > > You don't need (and have never needed) the function definition to > precede it's use. In old C, a function declaration does just as well -- > it provides as much information to the compiler as a function definition > does -- but neither a preceding declaration nor a preceding definition > will allow the compiler to convert the arguments to match the parameter > types. (The definition has more information in it, but the language > rules mean that the compiler is not allowed to use it. Indeed, some > very early C programs used the argument/parameter mismatch as a > poor-person's union.) > In pre-K&R, it was the ONLY WAY to specify the parameter list. If you wanted the compiler to validate the parameters being past and convert if necessary, you had to do it that way. > A function declaration that includes a prototype does provide the > information required to convert argument types. That seems to be what > you are talking about (backed-up by the dates -- they appears in > compiler in the second half of the 1980s). > > <snip> >> That's why I remember function declarations so well. It made >> programming so much easier! :) > > You must mean prototypes here. That was the major improvement that > arrived in C90 (though it was available in some compiler before that of > course). > If you want to call those function declarations, fine. We didn't back then. Function declarations were widely touted when the compilers first started supporting them. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jameskuyper@verizon.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-05 22:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <473c759d-504d-435b-aa0c-bc62f3c7026a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #98117 |
On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 10:24:56 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 12/5/2016 5:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > > Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes: > > > >> On 12/5/2016 10:15 AM, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: > >>> On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 6:39:24 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > >>>> C compiler support for function declarations came out about 1985, > >>>> IIRC. > > > > I think you mean function prototypes. C has always had function > > declarations. > > > > If you call > > int foo(); > > with no parameters, etc. a function declaration, then yes. We didn't > back then. ... > > C has always had function declarations. Some of what you write below > > suggest you are confusing plain declarations (which C has always had) > > with function prototypes which are more recent (though very old now). > > > > If you want to call them function declarations, fine. We didn't back then. ... > > You must mean prototypes here. That was the major improvement that > > arrived in C90 (though it was available in some compiler before that of > > course). > > > > If you want to call those function declarations, fine. We didn't back then. That's too bad. We did call them function declarations back then. Why didn't you like the terminology? It's a declaration (trivial to prove from the grammar), and the thing it declared was a function, so why wouldn't you call it a function declaration? The term was good enough for K&R (appendix A, section 17, page 213, 1st edition). Why wasn't it good enough for you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 10:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o26mnb$4ed$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98127 |
On 12/6/2016 1:47 AM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: > On Monday, December 5, 2016 at 10:24:56 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/5/2016 5:49 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes: >>> >>>> On 12/5/2016 10:15 AM, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: >>>>> On Sunday, December 4, 2016 at 6:39:24 PM UTC-6, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>> C compiler support for function declarations came out about 1985, >>>>>> IIRC. >>> >>> I think you mean function prototypes. C has always had function >>> declarations. >>> >> >> If you call >> >> int foo(); >> >> with no parameters, etc. a function declaration, then yes. We didn't >> back then. > ... >>> C has always had function declarations. Some of what you write below >>> suggest you are confusing plain declarations (which C has always had) >>> with function prototypes which are more recent (though very old now). >>> >> >> If you want to call them function declarations, fine. We didn't back then. > ... >>> You must mean prototypes here. That was the major improvement that >>> arrived in C90 (though it was available in some compiler before that of >>> course). >>> >> >> If you want to call those function declarations, fine. We didn't back then. > > That's too bad. We did call them function declarations back then. Why didn't > you like the terminology? It's a declaration (trivial to prove from the > grammar), and the thing it declared was a function, so why wouldn't you call it > a function declaration? The term was good enough for K&R (appendix A, section > 17, page 213, 1st edition). Why wasn't it good enough for you? > Gee, I don't know where you were. We didn't call them function declarations in the real world. And I'm not saying just me. It included all of the C programmers I knew at IBM, the C user's group I belonged to (over 100 people, most non-IBMers), the people I knew on CompuServe.... It seems there is only one person who claims to have called them function declarations - YOU. But then you always one to argue little shit instead of looking at the big picture. But that's what the stoopid to - because they can't understand the big picture - as you have shown in this thread. You obviously did NOT do any C programming before ANSI declarations started being used. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jameskuyper@verizon.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 10:25 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <2ebfc6a2-98f3-499f-a351-e852abb8b074@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #98171 |
On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 10:51:33 AM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: ... > You obviously did NOT do any C programming before ANSI declarations > started being used. I held three different jobs during that time period for which I was paid to write C code. If I wasn't doing any C programming at the time, my employers weren't getting their money's worth. I had a lot of experience writing K&R style function declarations by the time function prototypes came out, which is why I was so eager to adopt them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-06 16:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o27aar$f2j$2@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98186 |
On 12/6/2016 1:25 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: > On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 10:51:33 AM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > ... >> You obviously did NOT do any C programming before ANSI declarations >> started being used. > > I held three different jobs during that time period for which I was paid to > write C code. If I wasn't doing any C programming at the time, my employers > weren't getting their money's worth. I had a lot of experience writing K&R style > function declarations by the time function prototypes came out, which is why I > was so eager to adopt them. > Not from your updates, you didn't. Or at least, you didn't write good code. Experts knew how to do it right. That's why they coded from the bottom up. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-07 02:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87a8c8h4ls.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #98211 |
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes: > On 12/6/2016 1:25 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >> On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 10:51:33 AM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> ... >>> You obviously did NOT do any C programming before ANSI declarations >>> started being used. >> >> I held three different jobs during that time period for which I was paid to >> write C code. If I wasn't doing any C programming at the time, my employers >> weren't getting their money's worth. I had a lot of experience >> writing K&R style >> function declarations by the time function prototypes came out, which is why I >> was so eager to adopt them. >> > > Not from your updates, you didn't. Or at least, you didn't write good > code. Experts knew how to do it right. That's why they coded from the > bottom up. Nonsense. Every non-trivial program was made up of one or more .c files containing (manly) function definitions, and one or more .h files with (mainly) the function declarations -- whatever odd name you used for them at the time. No compiler at the time would do anything but the default argument promotions (thought in very early C they were not called that) regardless of whether a declaration or a definition had already been seen. There has never been any need to define rather the simply declare a function before use in C. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-07 09:30 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o296bu$vli$3@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98230 |
On 12/6/2016 9:09 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes: > >> On 12/6/2016 1:25 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >>> On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 10:51:33 AM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> ... >>>> You obviously did NOT do any C programming before ANSI declarations >>>> started being used. >>> >>> I held three different jobs during that time period for which I was paid to >>> write C code. If I wasn't doing any C programming at the time, my employers >>> weren't getting their money's worth. I had a lot of experience >>> writing K&R style >>> function declarations by the time function prototypes came out, which is why I >>> was so eager to adopt them. >>> >> >> Not from your updates, you didn't. Or at least, you didn't write good >> code. Experts knew how to do it right. That's why they coded from the >> bottom up. > > Nonsense. Every non-trivial program was made up of one or more .c files > containing (manly) function definitions, and one or more .h files with > (mainly) the function declarations -- whatever odd name you used for > them at the time. > > No compiler at the time would do anything but the default argument > promotions (thought in very early C they were not called that) > regardless of whether a declaration or a definition had already been > seen. There has never been any need to define rather the simply declare > a function before use in C. > Wrong again, Ben. But then you once again prove you have no idea. And when there were multiple source files, it was quite common to use #include so they could all be compiled together. But then you're an expert on things you never used, aren't you? Even when they are before you were born. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-08 01:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87zik7chyk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #98259 |
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes: > On 12/6/2016 9:09 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes: >> >>> On 12/6/2016 1:25 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 10:51:33 AM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> ... >>>>> You obviously did NOT do any C programming before ANSI declarations >>>>> started being used. >>>> >>>> I held three different jobs during that time period for which I was paid to >>>> write C code. If I wasn't doing any C programming at the time, my employers >>>> weren't getting their money's worth. I had a lot of experience >>>> writing K&R style >>>> function declarations by the time function prototypes came out, which is why I >>>> was so eager to adopt them. >>>> >>> >>> Not from your updates, you didn't. Or at least, you didn't write good >>> code. Experts knew how to do it right. That's why they coded from the >>> bottom up. >> >> Nonsense. Every non-trivial program was made up of one or more .c files >> containing (manly) function definitions, and one or more .h files with >> (mainly) the function declarations -- whatever odd name you used for >> them at the time. >> >> No compiler at the time would do anything but the default argument >> promotions (thought in very early C they were not called that) >> regardless of whether a declaration or a definition had already been >> seen. There has never been any need to define rather the simply declare >> a function before use in C. >> > > Wrong again, Ben. But then you once again prove you have no idea. > > And when there were multiple source files, it was quite common to use > #include so they could all be compiled together. Yes, that's the point I was making. Do you read the posts you reply to?. Unless, of course, you are claiming that you and your other "experts" used #include to include function definitions in order to maintain the (pointless) bottom-up order you think you once needed? Other people put function declarations in the included files. > But then you're an expert on things you never used, aren't you? Even > when they are before you were born. You could alwas post some evidence for your claims, you know. Then you would not have to rely on personal remarks. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-08 09:29 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2bqmf$75d$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98331 |
On 12/7/2016 8:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes: > >> On 12/6/2016 9:09 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes: >>> >>>> On 12/6/2016 1:25 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, December 6, 2016 at 10:51:33 AM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>> ... >>>>>> You obviously did NOT do any C programming before ANSI declarations >>>>>> started being used. >>>>> >>>>> I held three different jobs during that time period for which I was paid to >>>>> write C code. If I wasn't doing any C programming at the time, my employers >>>>> weren't getting their money's worth. I had a lot of experience >>>>> writing K&R style >>>>> function declarations by the time function prototypes came out, which is why I >>>>> was so eager to adopt them. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Not from your updates, you didn't. Or at least, you didn't write good >>>> code. Experts knew how to do it right. That's why they coded from the >>>> bottom up. >>> >>> Nonsense. Every non-trivial program was made up of one or more .c files >>> containing (manly) function definitions, and one or more .h files with >>> (mainly) the function declarations -- whatever odd name you used for >>> them at the time. >>> >>> No compiler at the time would do anything but the default argument >>> promotions (thought in very early C they were not called that) >>> regardless of whether a declaration or a definition had already been >>> seen. There has never been any need to define rather the simply declare >>> a function before use in C. >>> >> >> Wrong again, Ben. But then you once again prove you have no idea. >> >> And when there were multiple source files, it was quite common to use >> #include so they could all be compiled together. > > Yes, that's the point I was making. Do you read the posts you reply > to?. Unless, of course, you are claiming that you and your other > "experts" used #include to include function definitions in order to > maintain the (pointless) bottom-up order you think you once needed? > Other people put function declarations in the included files. > Yes, we did - because it was not pointless. When the definition was available, the parameters could be validated - number and type. With the declaration in the include files, only the return type could be validated. There was no other reason to #include C files in other C files. But it's obvious YOU do not read. I didn't say a thing about including header files. >> But then you're an expert on things you never used, aren't you? Even >> when they are before you were born. > > You could alwas post some evidence for your claims, you know. Then you > would not have to rely on personal remarks. > Do you have any compilers from 30 years ago and an OS on which they run? I'm not talking about a recent compiler which supports K&R. I'm talking about something like IBM or Microsoft compiler for DOS from that timeframe. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-08 21:54 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <871sxi9hz5.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #98361 |
Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes:
> On 12/7/2016 8:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes:
<snip>
>>> But then you're an expert on things you never used, aren't you? Even
>>> when they are before you were born.
>>
>> You could alwas post some evidence for your claims, you know. Then you
>> would not have to rely on personal remarks.
>
> Do you have any compilers from 30 years ago and an OS on which they
> run? I'm not talking about a recent compiler which supports K&R. I'm
> talking about something like IBM or Microsoft compiler for DOS from
> that timeframe.
Yes I do. "Microsoft" is a little vague but let's take Microsoft C
version 3.0 which is dated 1985 -- slap bang in the middle of the decade
you are talking about.
Here is the listing for the code generated for the function g from this
source:
int f(a) int a; { return a + 1; }
int g() { return f(1.0); }
CONST SEGMENT
$T20001 DQ 003ff00000H ; 1.000000000000000
CONST ENDS
_TEXT SEGMENT
PUBLIC _g
_g PROC NEAR
*** 000010 55 push bp
*** 000011 8b ec mov bp,sp
*** 000013 33 c0 xor ax,ax
*** 000015 e8 00 00 call __chkstk
*** 000018 8d 1e 00 00 lea bx,WORD PTR $T20001
*** 00001c e8 00 00 call __fldd
*** 00001f 83 ec 08 sub sp,8
*** 000022 8b dc mov bx,sp
*** 000024 e8 00 00 call __fstdp
*** 000027 e8 00 00 call _f
*** 00002a 8b e5 mov sp,bp
*** 00002c 5d pop bp
*** 00002d c3 ret
_g ENDP
Notice how it passes an 8 byte float to f despite the fact that the call
is preceded by a definition of f.
And for good measure, here is the code generated by this C source where
only a declaration is in scope at the point of the call:
int f();
int g() { return f(1.0); }
int f(a) int a; { return a + 1; }
CONST SEGMENT
$T20001 DQ 003ff00000H ; 1.000000000000000
CONST ENDS
_TEXT SEGMENT
PUBLIC _g
_g PROC NEAR
*** 000000 55 push bp
*** 000001 8b ec mov bp,sp
*** 000003 33 c0 xor ax,ax
*** 000005 e8 00 00 call __chkstk
*** 000008 8d 1e 00 00 lea bx,WORD PTR $T20001
*** 00000c e8 00 00 call __fldd
*** 00000f 83 ec 08 sub sp,8
*** 000012 8b dc mov bx,sp
*** 000014 e8 00 00 call __fstdp
*** 000017 e8 00 00 call _f
*** 00001a 8b e5 mov sp,bp
*** 00001c 5d pop bp
*** 00001d c3 ret
_g ENDP
Apart from the offsets it's the same code.
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-08 22:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2d6vj$kp6$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98424 |
On 12/8/2016 4:54 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes:
>
>> On 12/7/2016 8:44 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> writes:
> <snip>
>>>> But then you're an expert on things you never used, aren't you? Even
>>>> when they are before you were born.
>>>
>>> You could alwas post some evidence for your claims, you know. Then you
>>> would not have to rely on personal remarks.
>>
>> Do you have any compilers from 30 years ago and an OS on which they
>> run? I'm not talking about a recent compiler which supports K&R. I'm
>> talking about something like IBM or Microsoft compiler for DOS from
>> that timeframe.
>
> Yes I do. "Microsoft" is a little vague but let's take Microsoft C
> version 3.0 which is dated 1985 -- slap bang in the middle of the decade
> you are talking about.
>
> Here is the listing for the code generated for the function g from this
> source:
>
> int f(a) int a; { return a + 1; }
>
> int g() { return f(1.0); }
>
> CONST SEGMENT
> $T20001 DQ 003ff00000H ; 1.000000000000000
> CONST ENDS
> _TEXT SEGMENT
> PUBLIC _g
> _g PROC NEAR
> *** 000010 55 push bp
> *** 000011 8b ec mov bp,sp
> *** 000013 33 c0 xor ax,ax
> *** 000015 e8 00 00 call __chkstk
> *** 000018 8d 1e 00 00 lea bx,WORD PTR $T20001
> *** 00001c e8 00 00 call __fldd
> *** 00001f 83 ec 08 sub sp,8
> *** 000022 8b dc mov bx,sp
> *** 000024 e8 00 00 call __fstdp
> *** 000027 e8 00 00 call _f
> *** 00002a 8b e5 mov sp,bp
> *** 00002c 5d pop bp
> *** 00002d c3 ret
> _g ENDP
>
> Notice how it passes an 8 byte float to f despite the fact that the call
> is preceded by a definition of f.
>
> And for good measure, here is the code generated by this C source where
> only a declaration is in scope at the point of the call:
>
> int f();
>
> int g() { return f(1.0); }
>
> int f(a) int a; { return a + 1; }
>
> CONST SEGMENT
> $T20001 DQ 003ff00000H ; 1.000000000000000
> CONST ENDS
> _TEXT SEGMENT
> PUBLIC _g
> _g PROC NEAR
> *** 000000 55 push bp
> *** 000001 8b ec mov bp,sp
> *** 000003 33 c0 xor ax,ax
> *** 000005 e8 00 00 call __chkstk
> *** 000008 8d 1e 00 00 lea bx,WORD PTR $T20001
> *** 00000c e8 00 00 call __fldd
> *** 00000f 83 ec 08 sub sp,8
> *** 000012 8b dc mov bx,sp
> *** 000014 e8 00 00 call __fstdp
> *** 000017 e8 00 00 call _f
> *** 00001a 8b e5 mov sp,bp
> *** 00001c 5d pop bp
> *** 00001d c3 ret
> _g ENDP
>
> Apart from the offsets it's the same code.
>
You show nothing. Just another claim that's as full of BS as you are.
It's not what the discussion was about. Obviously you have serious
comprehension problems. But you've already shown that.
I suspect that didn't even come from the compiler you claim. You don't
still have the compiler (even if you had the diskettes, they wouldn't be
readable after 21 years).
But you'll argue with anything and everything, won't you, Ben? Even
from a position of ignorance.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 11:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o2e1i3$oki$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #98441 |
On 09/12/16 04:05, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > > You show nothing. Just another claim that's as full of BS as you are. > It's not what the discussion was about. Obviously you have serious > comprehension problems. But you've already shown that. > > I suspect that didn't even come from the compiler you claim. You don't > still have the compiler (even if you had the diskettes, they wouldn't be > readable after 21 years). > > But you'll argue with anything and everything, won't you, Ben? Even > from a position of ignorance. > Do you really think Ben has gone to such effort to make fake compiler outputs just to fool /you/? You are implying quite an extraordinary degree of dishonest and malice in Ben. He clearly posted the results from a /real/ compiler of the relevant age, showing the relevant point. I am no lawyer, but I would wonder if that crosses the line between Usenet banter and libel. Of course, since no one takes you seriously I don't think your comments will harm his solid reputation here. Incidentally, I have at least two different C compilers on hand that are over 20 years old. The floppies they came on are long gone - but the tools are available on my computer. In one case, I actually used the compiler to make a modification to code I wrote almost exactly twenty years previously. So I have no problem believing that Ben has a copy of a 31 year old compiler easily available.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 10:16 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2ehqg$hru$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98475 |
On 12/9/2016 5:39 AM, David Brown wrote: > On 09/12/16 04:05, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> >> You show nothing. Just another claim that's as full of BS as you are. >> It's not what the discussion was about. Obviously you have serious >> comprehension problems. But you've already shown that. >> >> I suspect that didn't even come from the compiler you claim. You don't >> still have the compiler (even if you had the diskettes, they wouldn't be >> readable after 21 years). >> >> But you'll argue with anything and everything, won't you, Ben? Even >> from a position of ignorance. >> > > Do you really think Ben has gone to such effort to make fake compiler > outputs just to fool /you/? You are implying quite an extraordinary > degree of dishonest and malice in Ben. He clearly posted the results > from a /real/ compiler of the relevant age, showing the relevant point. > I am no lawyer, but I would wonder if that crosses the line between > Usenet banter and libel. Of course, since no one takes you seriously I > don't think your comments will harm his solid reputation here. > Actually, I think he's quite capable of it. Just using a newer compiler and calling it an old one, for instance. Even if he could still read diskettes (when was the last time you had a computer with a diskette drive), diskettes 31 years old would not be readable. Additionally, it would not run on any current OS - none of them support DOS any more. There are some emulators - but only for the documented interface. Microsoft was well-known for using undocumented calls to the OS's, even back then. None of the emulators, AFAIK, support those undocumented calls. He made a claim with no support as to where he got the compiler or how he ran it. And I suggest you know as much about law as you do about C. But at least you admit you aren't a lawyer. > Incidentally, I have at least two different C compilers on hand that are > over 20 years old. The floppies they came on are long gone - but the > tools are available on my computer. In one case, I actually used the > compiler to make a modification to code I wrote almost exactly twenty > years previously. So I have no problem believing that Ben has a copy of > a 31 year old compiler easily available. > 20 years ago is not the same as 31 years ago. 20 years ago there was Windows NT, and most applications on that are still supported. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 16:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o2ejfk$o6s$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #98521 |
On 09/12/16 16:16, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 12/9/2016 5:39 AM, David Brown wrote: >> On 09/12/16 04:05, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> >>> You show nothing. Just another claim that's as full of BS as you are. >>> It's not what the discussion was about. Obviously you have serious >>> comprehension problems. But you've already shown that. >>> >>> I suspect that didn't even come from the compiler you claim. You don't >>> still have the compiler (even if you had the diskettes, they wouldn't be >>> readable after 21 years). >>> >>> But you'll argue with anything and everything, won't you, Ben? Even >>> from a position of ignorance. >>> >> >> Do you really think Ben has gone to such effort to make fake compiler >> outputs just to fool /you/? You are implying quite an extraordinary >> degree of dishonest and malice in Ben. He clearly posted the results >> from a /real/ compiler of the relevant age, showing the relevant point. >> I am no lawyer, but I would wonder if that crosses the line between >> Usenet banter and libel. Of course, since no one takes you seriously I >> don't think your comments will harm his solid reputation here. >> > > Actually, I think he's quite capable of it. Just using a newer compiler > and calling it an old one, for instance. I suspect you are the only person here who would consider intentional deception and dishonesty from James as being at all realistic. He may make mistakes - we all do. But I think few people in this group would actively and knowingly lie. James would have absolutely nothing to gain by doing so, and everything to lose if he were caught out in such a lie. > > Even if he could still read diskettes (when was the last time you had a > computer with a diskette drive), diskettes 31 years old would not be > readable. See below regarding the diskette straw man. > Additionally, it would not run on any current OS - none of > them support DOS any more. There are some emulators - but only for the > documented interface. Microsoft was well-known for using undocumented > calls to the OS's, even back then. None of the emulators, AFAIK, > support those undocumented calls. That could certainly be the case for some types of software, but I think it is less likely for a compiler. And emulators such as DOSbox and alternative DOS's such as FreeDOS put substantial effort into supporting undocumented calls needed to run old software (though of course they cannot guarantee everything), aiming for "bug for bug compatibility". And in actual fact, I find most of my old DOS tools run fine from the Win7 command line. (Noting that they are 20 years old, not 30 years old.) > > He made a claim with no support as to where he got the compiler or how > he ran it. I presume he has the compiler because long ago he used it for some work, and has kept it since. It is not hard to copy such tools from computer to computer as you update. As I say, I have most of the tools from my first days as a professional developer, all "on tap". James started before me, but I see no reason to doubt that he has a similar attitude to archiving tools. > > And I suggest you know as much about law as you do about C. But at > least you admit you aren't a lawyer. > >> Incidentally, I have at least two different C compilers on hand that are >> over 20 years old. The floppies they came on are long gone - but the >> tools are available on my computer. In one case, I actually used the >> compiler to make a modification to code I wrote almost exactly twenty >> years previously. So I have no problem believing that Ben has a copy of >> a 31 year old compiler easily available. >> > > 20 years ago is not the same as 31 years ago. 20 years ago there was > Windows NT, and most applications on that are still supported. > The tools to which I refer were DOS tools, not Windows or WinNT tools. And while I agree that 20 years ago is not the same as 31 years ago, I still find it hard to understand why you would disbelieve that someone has 30 year old tools or is able to run them.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-09 21:07 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o2f2tc$1gmg$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #98533 |
On 09-12-16 16:45, David Brown wrote: >> Actually, I think he's quite capable of it. Just using a newer compiler >> and calling it an old one, for instance. > > I suspect you are the only person here who would consider intentional > deception and dishonesty from James [...] > first days as a professional developer, all "on tap". James started Just a side note: it was Ben, not James, who posted the code. Keep it up guys. I want to see how deep Suckle can dig his own grave before finally giving in. -- Robert Spanjaard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 13 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 11 12 [13] 14 15 … 29 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web