Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #4783 > unrolled thread

C programming in 2011

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c

Contents

  C programming in 2011 Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 20:27 -0700
    Re: C programming in 2011 Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 22:33 -0500
    Re: C programming in 2011 Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 20:58 -0700
      Re: C programming in 2011 Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 21:06 -0700
        Re: C programming in 2011 Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-25 23:24 -0500
    Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-26 07:51 +0000
      Re: C programming in 2011 Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-05-26 11:15 +0100
        Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-26 06:53 -0400
          Re: C programming in 2011 Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-27 09:12 +1200
        Re: C programming in 2011 Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2011-05-29 00:39 +0100
          Re: C programming in 2011 Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-06-01 17:38 +0200
            Re: C programming in 2011 Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2011-06-01 22:34 +0100
              Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-01 21:42 +0000
                Re: C programming in 2011 Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2011-06-02 00:33 +0100
      Re: C programming in 2011 Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 03:41 -0700
        Re: C programming in 2011 Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-05-28 00:46 +0000
      Re: C programming in 2011 Chad <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 14:09 -0700
        Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-26 15:07 -0700
        Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-27 07:42 +0000
        Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-27 07:30 -0400
      Re: C programming in 2011 Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-29 01:15 +0300
        Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-28 22:24 +0000
          Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-28 16:08 -0700
            Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-28 23:47 +0000
              Re: C programming in 2011 Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-05-28 16:58 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-28 18:49 -0700
                  Re: C programming in 2011 Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> - 2011-05-29 11:13 +0000
                    Re: C programming in 2011 Jorge <jorge@jorgechamorro.com> - 2011-06-04 08:05 -0700
                      Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-04 16:20 +0000
                  Re: C programming in 2011 Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2011-05-29 14:35 +0100
                    Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-29 12:49 -0700
                      OT: Brackets, parentheses, etc. (Was: C programming in 2011) Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-29 16:13 -0500
                        Re: OT: Brackets, parentheses, etc. (Was: C programming in 2011) "Morris Keesan" <mkeesan@post.harvard.edu> - 2011-05-30 12:17 -0400
                          Re: OT: Brackets, parentheses, etc. (Was: C programming in 2011) Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com> - 2011-05-30 12:52 -0500
                      Re: C programming in 2011 Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2011-05-29 23:58 +0100
                        Re: C programming in 2011 Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-05-30 14:42 +0100
                          Re: C programming in 2011 Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com> - 2011-05-30 17:40 +0100
                          Re: C programming in 2011 Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2011-05-30 22:38 +0200
                      Re: C programming in 2011 "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-05-30 00:38 +0100
                      Re: C programming in 2011 Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-30 11:14 +0300
                Re: C programming in 2011 Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-05-29 06:55 -0700
              Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-28 18:47 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-30 15:02 +0300
          Re: C programming in 2011 Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-05-30 11:01 +0300
            Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-30 08:51 +0000
              Re: C programming in 2011 Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-31 01:54 +0100
                Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-31 12:00 +0000
                  Re: C programming in 2011 Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-05-31 16:44 +0000
                    Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-31 11:43 -0700
    Re: C programming in 2011 Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> - 2011-05-26 11:13 +0100
    Re: C programming in 2011 Francois Grieu <fgrieu@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 16:04 +0200
      Re: C programming in 2011 Branimir Maksimovic <bmaxa@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-26 16:21 +0200
        Re: C programming in 2011 Francois Grieu <fgrieu@gmail.com> - 2011-05-26 17:23 +0200
          Re: C programming in 2011 Branimir Maksimovic <bmaxa@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-26 19:15 +0200
            Re: C programming in 2011 Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-05-26 17:29 +0000
              Re: C programming in 2011 Branimir Maksimovic <bmaxa@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-26 20:10 +0200
            Re: C programming in 2011 Pierre Habouzit <madcoder@debian.org> - 2011-05-26 17:35 +0000
              Re: C programming in 2011 Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-05-26 17:53 +0000
                Re: C programming in 2011 Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-05-26 11:13 -0700
                  Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-26 21:57 -0400
                    Re: C programming in 2011 Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-05-31 01:13 -0700
              Re: C programming in 2011 Branimir Maksimovic <bmaxa@hotmail.com> - 2011-05-26 20:06 +0200
            Re: C programming in 2011 Ralf Damaschke <rwspam@gmx.de> - 2011-05-26 17:57 +0000
              Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-26 11:31 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 Ralf Damaschke <rwspam@gmx.de> - 2011-05-26 20:43 +0000
                  Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-26 14:53 -0700
          Re: C programming in 2011 Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-05-31 01:03 -0700
            Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-31 01:59 -0700
              Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-31 02:55 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-31 06:36 -0400
                  Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-31 05:57 -0700
                    Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-05-31 09:23 -0400
                      Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-05-31 07:50 -0700
                        Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-05-31 11:41 -0700
                          Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 01:46 -0700
                            Re: C programming in 2011 Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-06-01 10:07 +0000
                              Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 04:12 -0700
                                Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 07:46 -0700
                                Re: C programming in 2011 Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-01 17:53 +0000
                                Re: C programming in 2011 lawrence.jones@siemens.com - 2011-06-01 16:28 -0400
                                  Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 23:28 -0700
                                  Re: C programming in 2011 Uno <Uno@example.invalid> - 2011-06-09 21:24 -0600
                            Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-01 10:04 -0400
                              Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 08:21 -0700
                                Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 09:37 -0700
                                  Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-01 12:55 -0400
                                    Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 11:52 -0700
                                      Re: C programming in 2011 "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-06-02 00:00 +0100
                                        Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 23:19 -0700
                                Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-01 12:53 -0400
                                  Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 11:55 -0700
                              Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-01 08:41 -0700
                            Re: C programming in 2011 Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-06-01 17:12 +0200
                              Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-01 09:28 -0700
                            Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-01 08:38 -0700
                              Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-02 01:00 -0700
                                Re: C programming in 2011 Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-06-02 09:13 +0000
                                  Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-02 02:52 -0700
                                    Re: C programming in 2011 Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-06-02 11:41 +0000
                                      Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-02 05:53 -0700
                                        Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-02 06:49 -0700
                                          Re: C programming in 2011 Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-06-02 14:18 +0000
                                          Re: C programming in 2011 Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-02 21:02 +0000
                                            Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-02 23:55 -0700
                                              Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-03 08:37 +0000
                                                Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-03 06:49 -0400
                                                  Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-03 11:52 +0000
                                              Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-03 11:11 -0700
                                                Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-03 18:23 +0000
                                                  Re: C programming in 2011 Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-06-03 18:59 +0000
                                                    Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-03 19:48 +0000
                                                      Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-03 15:02 -0700
                                                Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-03 12:19 -0700
                                                  Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-03 13:40 -0700
                                                    Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-03 15:11 -0700
                                                      Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-03 15:24 -0700
                                                        Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-03 15:34 -0700
                                                          Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-03 17:10 -0700
                                                            Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-03 17:34 -0700
                                                        Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-04 09:47 -0400
                                        Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-02 10:02 -0400
                                    Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-02 12:17 +0000
                                Re: C programming in 2011 Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-06-02 08:48 -0700
                                  Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-02 10:35 -0700
                                Re: C programming in 2011 gordonb.jpem8@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-06-05 23:32 -0500
                                  Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-06 00:12 -0700
                                    Re: C programming in 2011 gordonb.5k8u2@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-06-06 05:18 -0500
                                      Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-06 08:16 -0700
                            Re: C programming in 2011 Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-06-03 18:06 -0700
                            Re: C programming in 2011 gordonb.zourz@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-06-05 21:25 -0500
                              Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-06 01:14 -0700
                                Re: C programming in 2011 gordonb.donaz@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-06-06 04:36 -0500
                                  Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-06 09:02 -0700
                                    Re: C programming in 2011 gordonb.k6ruq@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2011-06-06 18:36 -0500
                                      Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-07 10:14 -0700
                        Re: C programming in 2011 "J. J. Farrell" <jjf@bcs.org.uk> - 2011-05-31 19:56 +0100
                          Re: C programming in 2011 Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-06-01 14:54 +0200
                            Re: C programming in 2011 Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> - 2011-06-01 13:07 +0000
                            Re: C programming in 2011 pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-06-01 14:10 -0400
                              Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-01 19:58 -0400
                        Re: C programming in 2011 Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-06-01 09:07 +0000
                        Re: C programming in 2011 James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-06-01 09:29 -0400
                        Re: C programming in 2011 David Thompson <dave.thompson2@verizon.net> - 2011-06-07 02:18 -0400
                          Re: C programming in 2011 "Kleuskes & Moos" <kleuske@xs4all.nl> - 2011-06-07 09:31 -0700
                            Re: C programming in 2011 Patrick Scheible <kkt@zipcon.net> - 2011-06-09 14:55 -0700
                Re: C programming in 2011 Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2011-06-01 02:35 -0700
            Re: C programming in 2011 Francois Grieu <fgrieu@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 21:57 +0200
              Re: C programming in 2011 Francois Grieu <fgrieu@gmail.com> - 2011-05-31 22:03 +0200
    Re: C programming in 2011 Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-05-26 12:27 -0400
    Re: C programming in 2011 Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-05-26 18:02 +0100

Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8  Next page →

#4948

Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> writes:
> On 2011-05-26, Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 4. Emacs
> 
> Vi IMproved for me, but whatever works. The Linux kernel folks seem not
> too fond of emacs' default layout for C though, just saying...

I don't think I've ever see emacs' "linux" style do anything not 
approved by the coding standard. Some things aren't specified too 
accurately, so emacs may produce different indentation for multi-line
if conditions, for example, but there's no right and wrong in those
few cases.

I guess a straw poll of the half of the kernel team where I worked
would have yielded about 50% emacs-alike, 40% vi-alike, 10% other.
From their patches, I was never able to tell which was which.

Phil
-- 
"At least you know where you are with Microsoft."
"True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle." -- Matthew Vernon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4949

On 2011-05-28, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> writes:
>> On 2011-05-26, Duncan Bayne <dhgbayne@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > 4. Emacs
>> 
>> Vi IMproved for me, but whatever works. The Linux kernel folks seem not
>> too fond of emacs' default layout for C though, just saying...
>
> I don't think I've ever see emacs' "linux" style do anything not 
> approved by the coding standard. Some things aren't specified too 
> accurately, so emacs may produce different indentation for multi-line
> if conditions, for example, but there's no right and wrong in those
> few cases.
>
> I guess a straw poll of the half of the kernel team where I worked
> would have yielded about 50% emacs-alike, 40% vi-alike, 10% other.
> From their patches, I was never able to tell which was which.

Coding style is quite a personal thing, and I don't think there is a
real right or wrong in that. It was just something I came across while
browsing through the kernel documentation.

I like putting my accolades on separate lines so I can clearly see
where blocks begin and end, but others like to put their opening
accolade at the end of the if/while/for/function. Like I said earlier,
whatever works for you. :-)


-- 
"C provides a programmer with more than enough rope to hang himself.
C++ provides a firing squad, blindfold and last cigarette."
- seen in comp.lang.c

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4959

Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> writes:
[...]
> Coding style is quite a personal thing, and I don't think there is a
> real right or wrong in that. It was just something I came across while
> browsing through the kernel documentation.
>
> I like putting my accolades on separate lines so I can clearly see
> where blocks begin and end, but others like to put their opening
> accolade at the end of the if/while/for/function. Like I said earlier,
> whatever works for you. :-)

Are you sure that "accolade" is the word you're looking for?

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4963

On 2011-05-28, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
> Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> writes:
> [...]
>> Coding style is quite a personal thing, and I don't think there is a
>> real right or wrong in that. It was just something I came across while
>> browsing through the kernel documentation.
>>
>> I like putting my accolades on separate lines so I can clearly see
>> where blocks begin and end, but others like to put their opening
>> accolade at the end of the if/while/for/function. Like I said earlier,
>> whatever works for you. :-)
>
> Are you sure that "accolade" is the word you're looking for?

Like I pointed out in another thread, it is the correct word in Dutch.
I'm not a native English speaker.

It does have that meaning in English too, but only in the context of
sheet music, it seems. I think "curly brace" is the correct term, no?

Anyway, I mean these things: {}


-- 
"C provides a programmer with more than enough rope to hang himself.
C++ provides a firing squad, blindfold and last cigarette."
- seen in comp.lang.c

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4965

On 28 May 2011 23:47:01 GMT, Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> wrote:

>On 2011-05-28, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>> Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> writes:
>> [...]
>>> Coding style is quite a personal thing, and I don't think there is a
>>> real right or wrong in that. It was just something I came across while
>>> browsing through the kernel documentation.
>>>
>>> I like putting my accolades on separate lines so I can clearly see
>>> where blocks begin and end, but others like to put their opening
>>> accolade at the end of the if/while/for/function. Like I said earlier,
>>> whatever works for you. :-)
>>
>> Are you sure that "accolade" is the word you're looking for?
>
>Like I pointed out in another thread, it is the correct word in Dutch.
>I'm not a native English speaker.
>
>It does have that meaning in English too, but only in the context of
>sheet music, it seems. I think "curly brace" is the correct term, no?
>
>Anyway, I mean these things: {}

brackets: []
braces: {}

I thoroughly detest the words curly braces to describe braces.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4971

Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> writes:
> On 28 May 2011 23:47:01 GMT, Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>On 2011-05-28, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>>> Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> writes:
>>> [...]
>>>> Coding style is quite a personal thing, and I don't think there is a
>>>> real right or wrong in that. It was just something I came across while
>>>> browsing through the kernel documentation.
>>>>
>>>> I like putting my accolades on separate lines so I can clearly see
>>>> where blocks begin and end, but others like to put their opening
>>>> accolade at the end of the if/while/for/function. Like I said earlier,
>>>> whatever works for you. :-)
>>>
>>> Are you sure that "accolade" is the word you're looking for?
>>
>>Like I pointed out in another thread, it is the correct word in Dutch.
>>I'm not a native English speaker.
>>
>>It does have that meaning in English too, but only in the context of
>>sheet music, it seems. I think "curly brace" is the correct term, no?
>>
>>Anyway, I mean these things: {}
>
> brackets: []
> braces: {}
>
> I thoroughly detest the words curly braces to describe braces.

The problem is that I've seen () referred to as brackets, and []
as braces.  I think there are differences between US and UK usage.

The word "parentheses" is reasonably unambiguous as far as I know,
but I like to refer to "square brackets" and "curly braces" when
there's any chance of confusion.  (Or, in writing, I just use the
characters themselves.)

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#4998

On 2011-05-29, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
> Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> On 28 May 2011 23:47:01 GMT, Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>>On 2011-05-28, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>>>> Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> writes:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> Coding style is quite a personal thing, and I don't think there is a
>>>>> real right or wrong in that. It was just something I came across while
>>>>> browsing through the kernel documentation.
>>>>>
>>>>> I like putting my accolades on separate lines so I can clearly see
>>>>> where blocks begin and end, but others like to put their opening
>>>>> accolade at the end of the if/while/for/function. Like I said earlier,
>>>>> whatever works for you. :-)
>>>>
>>>> Are you sure that "accolade" is the word you're looking for?
>>>
>>>Like I pointed out in another thread, it is the correct word in Dutch.
>>>I'm not a native English speaker.
>>>
>>>It does have that meaning in English too, but only in the context of
>>>sheet music, it seems. I think "curly brace" is the correct term, no?
>>>
>>>Anyway, I mean these things: {}
>>
>> brackets: []
>> braces: {}
>>
>> I thoroughly detest the words curly braces to describe braces.
>
> The problem is that I've seen () referred to as brackets, and []
> as braces.  I think there are differences between US and UK usage.
>
> The word "parentheses" is reasonably unambiguous as far as I know,
> but I like to refer to "square brackets" and "curly braces" when
> there's any chance of confusion.  (Or, in writing, I just use the
> characters themselves.)

Let's use french!

() is parenthèses
[] is crochets
{} is accolades
<> is chevrons

-- 
·O·  Pierre Habouzit
··O                                                madcoder@debian.org
OOO                                                http://www.madism.org

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5429

On May 29, 1:13 pm, Pierre Habouzit <madco...@debian.org> wrote:
> On 2011-05-29, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Geoff <ge...@invalid.invalid> writes:
> >> On 28 May 2011 23:47:01 GMT, Angel <angel+n...@spamcop.net> wrote:
> >>>On 2011-05-28, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
> >>>> Angel <angel+n...@spamcop.net> writes:
> >>>> [...]
> >>>>> Coding style is quite a personal thing, and I don't think there is a
> >>>>> real right or wrong in that. It was just something I came across while
> >>>>> browsing through the kernel documentation.
>
> >>>>> I like putting my accolades on separate lines so I can clearly see
> >>>>> where blocks begin and end, but others like to put their opening
> >>>>> accolade at the end of the if/while/for/function. Like I said earlier,
> >>>>> whatever works for you. :-)
>
> >>>> Are you sure that "accolade" is the word you're looking for?
>
> >>>Like I pointed out in another thread, it is the correct word in Dutch.
> >>>I'm not a native English speaker.
>
> >>>It does have that meaning in English too, but only in the context of
> >>>sheet music, it seems. I think "curly brace" is the correct term, no?
>
> >>>Anyway, I mean these things: {}
>
> >> brackets: []
> >> braces: {}
>
> >> I thoroughly detest the words curly braces to describe braces.
>
> > The problem is that I've seen () referred to as brackets, and []
> > as braces.  I think there are differences between US and UK usage.
>
> > The word "parentheses" is reasonably unambiguous as far as I know,
> > but I like to refer to "square brackets" and "curly braces" when
> > there's any chance of confusion.  (Or, in writing, I just use the
> > characters themselves.)
>
> Let's use french!
>
> () is parenthèses
> [] is crochets
> {} is accolades
> <> is chevrons

Or spanish !

() paréntesis
[] corchetes
{} llaves
<> cuñas

--
Jorge.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5431

On 2011-06-04, Jorge <jorge@jorgechamorro.com> wrote:
> On May 29, 1:13?pm, Pierre Habouzit <madco...@debian.org> wrote:
>> On 2011-05-29, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>>
>> Let's use french!
>>
>> () is parenth?ses
>> [] is crochets
>> {} is accolades
>> <> is chevrons
>
> Or spanish !
>
> () par?ntesis
> [] corchetes
> {} llaves
> <> cu?as

What about dutch, that's what this all started with, eh? :-)

() haakjes
[] blokhaken
{} accolades
<> punthaken


-- 
"C provides a programmer with more than enough rope to hang himself.
C++ provides a firing squad, blindfold and last cigarette."
- seen in comp.lang.c

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5007

On 2011-05-29 02:49:23 +0100, Keith Thompson said:

> Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> writes:
>> On 28 May 2011 23:47:01 GMT, Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>> On 2011-05-28, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>>>> Angel <angel+news@spamcop.net> writes:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> Coding style is quite a personal thing, and I don't think there is a
>>>>> real right or wrong in that. It was just something I came across while
>>>>> browsing through the kernel documentation.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I like putting my accolades on separate lines so I can clearly see
>>>>> where blocks begin and end, but others like to put their opening
>>>>> accolade at the end of the if/while/for/function. Like I said earlier,
>>>>> whatever works for you. :-)
>>>> 
>>>> Are you sure that "accolade" is the word you're looking for?
>>> 
>>> Like I pointed out in another thread, it is the correct word in Dutch.
>>> I'm not a native English speaker.
>>> 
>>> It does have that meaning in English too, but only in the context of
>>> sheet music, it seems. I think "curly brace" is the correct term, no?
>>> 
>>> Anyway, I mean these things: {}
>> 
>> brackets: []
>> braces: {}
>> 
>> I thoroughly detest the words curly braces to describe braces.
> 
> The problem is that I've seen () referred to as brackets, and []
> as braces.  I think there are differences between US and UK usage.

Correct. In England we refer to () as brackets and [] as square brackets.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5019

Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com> writes:
> On 2011-05-29 02:49:23 +0100, Keith Thompson said:
[...]
>> The problem is that I've seen () referred to as brackets, and []
>> as braces.  I think there are differences between US and UK usage.
>
> Correct. In England we refer to () as brackets and [] as square brackets.

Do you not use the word parentheses?  If someone else refers to
parentheses, do they unambiguously refer to ()?

And what do you call {}?

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5021 — OT: Brackets, parentheses, etc. (Was: C programming in 2011)

On 5/29/2011 2:49 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> Nizumzen<chicken@mcnuggets.com>  writes:
>> On 2011-05-29 02:49:23 +0100, Keith Thompson said:
> [...]
>>> The problem is that I've seen () referred to as brackets, and []
>>> as braces.  I think there are differences between US and UK usage.
>>
>> Correct. In England we refer to () as brackets and [] as square brackets.
>
> Do you not use the word parentheses?  If someone else refers to
> parentheses, do they unambiguously refer to ()?

When I was a young student of various public education institutes, we 
learned "BEDMAS" or sometimes "BEMDAS".  See here[1].

As a native speaker of English, I understand both terms can be used to 
mean '(' and ')'.  Almost everyone I know uses "brackets" for these, but 
these same people would understand "parentheses" just as well.  I use 
"brackets" more in speech and "parentheses" more in online discussion.

FWIW. :)

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_operations

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5044 — Re: OT: Brackets, parentheses, etc. (Was: C programming in 2011)

On Sun, 29 May 2011 17:13:35 -0400, Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com>  
wrote:

> On 5/29/2011 2:49 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Nizumzen<chicken@mcnuggets.com>  writes:
>>> On 2011-05-29 02:49:23 +0100, Keith Thompson said:
>> [...]
>>>> The problem is that I've seen () referred to as brackets, and []
>>>> as braces.  I think there are differences between US and UK usage.
>>>
>>> Correct. In England we refer to () as brackets and [] as square  
>>> brackets.
>>
>> Do you not use the word parentheses?  If someone else refers to
>> parentheses, do they unambiguously refer to ()?
>
> When I was a young student of various public education institutes, we  
> learned "BEDMAS" or sometimes "BEMDAS".  See here[1].
>
> As a native speaker of English, I understand both terms can be used to  
> mean '(' and ')'.  Almost everyone I know uses "brackets" for these, but  
> these same people would understand "parentheses" just as well.  I use  
> "brackets" more in speech and "parentheses" more in online discussion.

A few years ago,  I was using an Artificial Intelligence textbook which
was written, and originally published, in England, and had been
republished in the US.  In the course of preparing the book for US
publication, someone saw, in the chapter on LISP, the word "brackets",
and changed all of the related instances of () into [].


-- 
Morris Keesan -- mkeesan@post.harvard.edu

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5046 — Re: OT: Brackets, parentheses, etc. (Was: C programming in 2011)

On 5/30/2011 11:17 AM, Morris Keesan wrote:
> On Sun, 29 May 2011 17:13:35 -0400, Shao Miller <sha0.miller@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 5/29/2011 2:49 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>> Nizumzen<chicken@mcnuggets.com> writes:
>>>> On 2011-05-29 02:49:23 +0100, Keith Thompson said:
>>> [...]
>>>>> The problem is that I've seen () referred to as brackets, and []
>>>>> as braces. I think there are differences between US and UK usage.
>>>>
>>>> Correct. In England we refer to () as brackets and [] as square
>>>> brackets.
>>>
>>> Do you not use the word parentheses? If someone else refers to
>>> parentheses, do they unambiguously refer to ()?
>>
>> When I was a young student of various public education institutes, we
>> learned "BEDMAS" or sometimes "BEMDAS". See here[1].
>>
>> As a native speaker of English, I understand both terms can be used to
>> mean '(' and ')'. Almost everyone I know uses "brackets" for these,
>> but these same people would understand "parentheses" just as well. I
>> use "brackets" more in speech and "parentheses" more in online
>> discussion.
>
> A few years ago, I was using an Artificial Intelligence textbook which
> was written, and originally published, in England, and had been
> republished in the US. In the course of preparing the book for US
> publication, someone saw, in the chapter on LISP, the word "brackets",
> and changed all of the related instances of () into [].
>
>
D'oh; yikes.  Perhaps it was an AI that noted this and performed the 
change? :)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5023

On 2011-05-29 20:49:54 +0100, Keith Thompson said:

> Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com> writes:
>> On 2011-05-29 02:49:23 +0100, Keith Thompson said:
> [...]
>>> The problem is that I've seen () referred to as brackets, and []
>>> as braces.  I think there are differences between US and UK usage.
>> 
>> Correct. In England we refer to () as brackets and [] as square brackets.
> 
> Do you not use the word parentheses?  If someone else refers to
> parentheses, do they unambiguously refer to ()?
> 
> And what do you call {}?

I very rarely hear anyone outside of the programming community refer to 
them as parentheses. Some do I am sure but round where I am everyone 
calls them brackets in general day to day conversation.

Yes, parentheses means () to me. But maybe that is just because I am 
used to the programming lingo? I have no idea what someone with no 
programming experience would think.

As for {} we call them curly brackets unsurprisingly :).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5043

In message <iruj2b$49t$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Nizumzen
<chicken@mcnuggets.com> writes
>On 2011-05-29 20:49:54 +0100, Keith Thompson said:
>
>> Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com> writes:
>>> On 2011-05-29 02:49:23 +0100, Keith Thompson said:
>> [...]
>>>> The problem is that I've seen () referred to as brackets, and []
>>>> as braces.  I think there are differences between US and UK usage.
>>>  Correct. In England we refer to () as brackets and [] as square
>>>brackets.
>>  Do you not use the word parentheses?  If someone else refers to
>> parentheses, do they unambiguously refer to ()?
>>  And what do you call {}?
>
>I very rarely hear anyone outside of the programming community refer to
>them as parentheses. Some do I am sure but round where I am everyone
>calls them brackets in general day to day conversation.

A lot of people (but few now than in the past)  call () Parenthesis in
normal speech.

>Yes, parentheses means () to me. But maybe that is just because I am
>used to the programming lingo? I have no idea what someone with no
>programming experience would think.

The same.



-- 
Support Sarah Palin for the next US President
Go Palin! Go Palin! Go Palin!
In God We Trust! Rapture Ready!!!
http://www.sarahpac.com/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5045

On 2011-05-30 14:42:26 +0100, Chris H said:

> In message <iruj2b$49t$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Nizumzen
> <chicken@mcnuggets.com> writes
>> On 2011-05-29 20:49:54 +0100, Keith Thompson said:
>> 
>>> Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com> writes:
>>>> On 2011-05-29 02:49:23 +0100, Keith Thompson said:
>>> [...]
>>>>> The problem is that I've seen () referred to as brackets, and []
>>>>> as braces.  I think there are differences between US and UK usage.
>>>> Correct. In England we refer to () as brackets and [] as square
>>>> brackets.
>>> Do you not use the word parentheses?  If someone else refers to
>>> parentheses, do they unambiguously refer to ()?
>>> And what do you call {}?
>> 
>> I very rarely hear anyone outside of the programming community refer to
>> them as parentheses. Some do I am sure but round where I am everyone
>> calls them brackets in general day to day conversation.
> 
> A lot of people (but few now than in the past)  call () Parenthesis in
> normal speech.
> 
>> Yes, parentheses means () to me. But maybe that is just because I am
>> used to the programming lingo? I have no idea what someone with no
>> programming experience would think.
> 
> The same.

Well, your experience may vary, but round here its brackets for everything.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5052

Chris H wrote:
> In message <iruj2b$49t$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Nizumzen
> <chicken@mcnuggets.com> writes
>> On 2011-05-29 20:49:54 +0100, Keith Thompson said:
>>
>>> Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com> writes:
>>>> On 2011-05-29 02:49:23 +0100, Keith Thompson said:
>>> [...]
>>>>> The problem is that I've seen () referred to as brackets, and []
>>>>> as braces.  I think there are differences between US and UK usage.
>>>>  Correct. In England we refer to () as brackets and [] as square
>>>> brackets.
>>>  Do you not use the word parentheses?  If someone else refers to
>>> parentheses, do they unambiguously refer to ()?
>>>  And what do you call {}?
>> I very rarely hear anyone outside of the programming community refer to
>> them as parentheses. Some do I am sure but round where I am everyone
>> calls them brackets in general day to day conversation.
> 
> A lot of people (but few now than in the past)  call () Parenthesis in
> normal speech.
> 
>> Yes, parentheses means () to me. But maybe that is just because I am
>> used to the programming lingo? I have no idea what someone with no
>> programming experience would think.
> 
> The same.
> 
> 
> 
()   haakjes
{}   accoladen
[]   blokhaken

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5024

Keith Thompson wrote:
> Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com> writes:
>> On 2011-05-29 02:49:23 +0100, Keith Thompson said:
> [...]
>>> The problem is that I've seen () referred to as brackets, and []
>>> as braces.  I think there are differences between US and UK usage.
>> Correct. In England we refer to () as brackets and [] as square brackets.
> 
> Do you not use the word parentheses?

Not commonly; it's widely understood and thought of as "a fancy word for 
brackets".

> If someone else refers to
> parentheses, do they unambiguously refer to ()?

Yes. Except perhaps in a literary context where "in parentheses" could 
be used to refer to "a parenthetical phrase" or "parenthesis" which 
could actually be delimited by commas.

> And what do you call {}?

Personally, "curly brackets" or "braces". I've been programming too long 
in multinational contexts to remember for sure what they're normally 
called in Britain; if indeed they're "normally" called anything, since 
they're rarely seen outside programming.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#5040

Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
> Nizumzen <chicken@mcnuggets.com> writes:
> > On 2011-05-29 02:49:23 +0100, Keith Thompson said:
> [...]
> >> The problem is that I've seen () referred to as brackets, and []
> >> as braces.  I think there are differences between US and UK usage.
> >
> > Correct. In England we refer to () as brackets and [] as square brackets.
> 
> Do you not use the word parentheses?  If someone else refers to

They all brace, and therefore they're all brackets.

> parentheses, do they unambiguously refer to ()?
 
Parentheses shouldn't be unambiguous. Parenthesis is a description of 
the *meaning* of the pair of symbols, namely marking something as 
parenthetical. In C, the parenthetical markup is traditionally /* this 
one */. Editorial parenthetical markup is usually [this one]. It's 
generally only prose that uses (this form).

> And what do you call {}?

Curly {brackets,braces}, but mostly the former (see my first paragraph
above). The latter only by those who discuss code with Americans a lot.

Phil
-- 
"At least you know where you are with Microsoft."
"True. I just wish I'd brought a paddle." -- Matthew Vernon

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 8 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c

csiph-web