Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #90018 > unrolled thread
| Started by | G G <gdotone@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-05 02:38 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-11-27 10:05 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 354 — 37 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
double free G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 02:38 -0700
Re: double free Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-05 21:45 +1200
Re: double free Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-07-05 07:08 -0400
Re: double free G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 16:41 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-05 10:50 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-05 11:06 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-05 19:07 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-05 12:16 +0000
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-05 13:57 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-05 08:43 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-05 14:57 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-10 18:49 +0000
Re: double free G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 17:03 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-05 17:25 -0700
Re: double free Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2016-07-06 19:09 +0000
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-06 15:22 -0400
Re: double free Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2016-07-09 06:13 +0100
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-09 10:16 -0400
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-09 08:58 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-09 13:28 -0700
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-11 10:41 +0000
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-09 20:27 +0200
Re: double free "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-09 11:31 -0700
Re: double free Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 20:14 +0100
Re: double free Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-09 15:34 -0400
Re: double free jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-07-09 14:02 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-09 14:10 -0700
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-09 17:14 -0400
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-09 14:24 -0700
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-09 17:31 -0400
Re: double free Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-09 20:50 -0400
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-09 15:50 -0400
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-10 11:32 +0200
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-10 16:01 -0400
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-11 10:07 +0200
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-11 08:15 -0400
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-11 06:53 -0700
Re: double free Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-11 10:35 -0600
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-11 09:48 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 11:02 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 11:01 -0700
Re: double free Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-11 13:03 -0600
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 10:57 -0700
Re: double free albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-11-27 13:29 +0100
Re: double free Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-27 14:07 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-10 13:05 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-10 05:31 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-10 13:42 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-11 01:07 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-09 13:39 -0700
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-10 11:53 +0200
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-10 04:11 -0700
Re: double free Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-10 08:47 -0400
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-10 16:05 -0400
Re: double free Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-09 17:43 -0600
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-09 17:32 -0700
Re: double free Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-09 20:34 -0600
Re: double free Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2016-07-10 06:25 +0000
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-11 08:02 -0700
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-11 11:01 +0000
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-11 04:07 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 12:17 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-11 04:59 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 13:07 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 13:38 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 14:11 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 18:54 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 11:09 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 19:47 +0100
Re: double free Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-07-11 19:08 +0000
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-11 21:19 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 21:34 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 13:48 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-11 22:49 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 23:20 +0100
Re: double free Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 10:26 +0530
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-11 22:34 -0700
Re: double free Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-07-12 06:39 +0000
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-12 00:41 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 08:57 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-12 01:16 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 09:27 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-12 11:48 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 08:46 +0100
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-12 10:42 +0200
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 09:59 +0100
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-12 12:46 +0200
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 09:08 -0700
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-12 18:51 +0200
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 11:28 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-12 19:53 +0100
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-12 12:19 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 14:26 -0700
Re: double free Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-12 11:00 -0400
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 16:18 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 08:44 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-12 09:24 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-12 17:34 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-12 09:52 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 09:40 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-12 18:22 +0100
Re: double free Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 18:33 +0100
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-13 14:00 -0400
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 19:16 +0100
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-18 09:15 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-18 09:04 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-18 11:10 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-20 08:52 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-20 09:36 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-21 18:23 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 08:42 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-12 11:24 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-12 11:52 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-12 13:18 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-12 16:42 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-12 17:21 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 09:35 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-12 18:08 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 18:14 +0100
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-18 10:01 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-18 18:20 +0100
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-21 09:26 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-21 18:57 +0100
Re: double free Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 23:41 +0530
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-22 19:47 +0100
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-22 11:58 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 12:03 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-22 20:26 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 13:12 -0700
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 08:57 +0000
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-23 10:21 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-23 11:08 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-23 12:36 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-23 07:14 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-23 16:41 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 19:17 +0000
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-23 20:42 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 12:51 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-23 21:50 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 14:17 -0700
Re: double free luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 15:53 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 20:55 -0700
Re: double free luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 22:21 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-24 10:35 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-24 02:55 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-24 04:05 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-24 14:03 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-24 14:24 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-24 15:15 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-24 16:01 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-24 11:36 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-24 19:52 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-24 12:14 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-24 11:13 -0700
Re: double free Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 14:52 -0500
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-25 09:59 -0700
Re: double free Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 19:32 -0500
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-25 07:39 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-24 10:55 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-24 08:30 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-23 11:11 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 12:39 -0700
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 20:25 +0000
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-22 12:51 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-22 13:18 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-24 08:23 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-24 19:36 +0100
Re: double free albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-12-02 10:21 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-02 10:57 +0000
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-02 12:33 +0000
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-02 14:07 +0100
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-02 10:19 -0500
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-02 08:56 -0800
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-02 12:31 -0500
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-02 11:42 -0800
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-12 08:46 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 09:16 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-12 09:27 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 08:20 -0700
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-12 12:47 -0400
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-12 22:21 +0000
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-12 23:27 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 16:28 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-13 00:23 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 08:43 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 11:21 +0100
Re: double free Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-07-13 12:56 +0200
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 12:35 +0100
Re: double free Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-13 10:34 -0400
Re: double free Cal Dershowitz <cal@example.invalid> - 2016-07-15 05:57 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 11:17 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-13 04:30 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 12:33 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 13:41 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 13:57 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-13 06:10 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-13 20:08 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 15:11 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 18:14 +0100
Re: double free Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-07-13 19:20 +0200
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 18:24 +0100
Re: double free Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-15 00:51 -0500
Re: double free luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 02:18 -0700
Re: double free "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-07-15 07:12 -0500
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-15 13:14 +0100
Re: double free Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-18 09:28 +0200
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 18:43 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-13 20:15 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 21:14 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-13 13:24 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 21:50 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 19:21 +0000
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-13 13:02 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 21:34 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-13 13:51 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 22:22 +0100
Re: double free Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-15 01:08 -0500
Re: double free Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2016-07-15 17:33 +0800
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-15 05:02 -0700
Re: double free Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2016-07-15 21:15 +0800
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 14:48 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-15 08:02 -0700
Re: double free Cal Dershowitz <cal@example.invalid> - 2016-07-18 01:42 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-18 03:07 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-13 22:01 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 22:14 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-13 14:31 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-13 23:03 +0100
Re: double free "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-07-13 17:53 -0500
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-13 16:18 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-13 16:19 -0700
Re: double free Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-13 22:44 -0400
Re: double free Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-07-14 09:44 +0200
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-13 17:07 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-14 07:13 -0700
Re: double free Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-15 01:18 -0500
Re: double free Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-13 10:46 -0400
Re: double free Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-15 00:59 -0500
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-14 23:47 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 11:22 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 11:35 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 14:33 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 15:16 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 16:19 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-15 08:39 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 16:54 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 21:20 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 16:45 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 17:15 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 17:42 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 21:18 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 21:06 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 21:46 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 23:08 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-16 01:26 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-15 18:22 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-15 18:48 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-15 18:40 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-15 10:09 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-15 11:07 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-15 12:11 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-15 12:30 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-15 12:41 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-15 13:04 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-15 14:26 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-19 10:00 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-13 12:46 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 13:19 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 13:30 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-13 20:53 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 21:37 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-13 05:22 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-13 07:07 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-14 19:31 +0100
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-14 12:10 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-14 23:16 +0100
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-14 16:00 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-14 12:34 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-14 20:57 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-14 13:15 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-14 21:27 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-14 21:31 +0100
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-18 09:46 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 13:32 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 13:46 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-19 06:00 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-19 09:23 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-19 09:38 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 17:51 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 18:22 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 09:02 +0000
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-19 11:42 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-19 12:27 -0700
Re: double free Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2016-07-21 10:02 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-21 10:25 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-21 18:27 +0100
Re: double free Cal Dershowitz <cal@example.invalid> - 2016-07-29 00:42 -0700
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 08:59 +0000
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 15:22 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 15:59 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 16:39 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 16:55 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 17:49 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 18:20 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 19:03 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 19:22 +0100
sizeof (was Re: double free) Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-19 14:44 -0400
Re: sizeof (was Re: double free) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-19 12:31 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 22:46 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-19 15:19 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-20 00:21 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 19:21 +0000
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-19 12:08 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-19 09:41 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-21 18:10 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-22 11:23 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-22 03:40 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 10:33 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-22 12:47 -0700
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-12 22:18 +0000
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 10:53 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 21:20 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 13:56 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 22:39 +0100
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-12 10:57 +0200
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 21:58 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 13:23 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-11 13:00 +0000
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 10:44 -0700
Re: double free Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 19:10 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 20:22 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 21:11 +0100
Re: double free Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 21:49 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 22:01 +0100
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-11 09:09 -0400
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 14:16 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-15 13:51 +0000
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-15 12:04 -0400
Re: double free Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-07-11 17:51 +0200
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-11 10:19 +0000
Re: double free Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-05 08:57 -0600
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-05 11:13 -0400
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-05 09:05 -0700
Re: double free G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 16:38 -0700
Re: double free G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 16:34 -0700
Re: double free Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2016-07-06 04:10 +0100
Re: double free Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-05 21:27 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-06 02:53 -0700
Re: double free Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-06 06:09 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-06 07:53 -0700
Re: double free "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-06 01:25 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-06 11:12 +0100
Re: double free Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 09:52 -0800
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-27 10:05 -0800
Page 11 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 18 Next page →
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 18:24 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nm5tgh$9f4$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90335 |
On 13/07/16 18:14, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 13/07/16 15:11, BartC wrote: >> On 13/07/2016 13:57, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 13/07/16 13:41, BartC wrote: >> >>>> I still think that using * for deference, for multiply and for >>>> 'pointer-to' was a bad idea. The fact that C isn't going to change that >>>> doesn't mean I'm completely wrong. >>> >>> In C, they work fine, and in C, you're completely wrong. >> >> A**B doesn't mean raise A to power B, > > Why on earth would it? The mathematical notation for raising to a power > is A^B For some reason I was expecting this to come out as: B A but of course it didn't. (My newsreader sometimes interprets ^ as 'use a raised superscript', but I suppose it only does that for numbers: 2^3). Every protocol has compromises. We know what Thunderbird's are. They're a little quirky... -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 00:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <7eugobli4cn4ho8hh6o659jecpbpffdqni@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #90337 |
On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 18:24:33 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: >On 13/07/16 18:14, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 13/07/16 15:11, BartC wrote: >>> On 13/07/2016 13:57, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> On 13/07/16 13:41, BartC wrote: >>> >>>>> I still think that using * for deference, for multiply and for >>>>> 'pointer-to' was a bad idea. The fact that C isn't going to change that >>>>> doesn't mean I'm completely wrong. >>>> >>>> In C, they work fine, and in C, you're completely wrong. >>> >>> A**B doesn't mean raise A to power B, >> >> Why on earth would it? The mathematical notation for raising to a power >> is A^B > >For some reason I was expecting this to come out as: > B >A > >but of course it didn't. (My newsreader sometimes interprets ^ as 'use a >raised superscript', but I suppose it only does that for numbers: 2^3). Actually A^B (with a caret) has not been uncommon for exponentiation either.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 02:18 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <758dd1d2-c9e5-483b-843b-f6ce1b74e6c4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #90379 |
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 12:50:26 AM UTC-5, robert...@yahoo.com wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 18:24:33 +0100, Richard Heathfield > <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: > > >On 13/07/16 18:14, Richard Heathfield wrote: > >> On 13/07/16 15:11, BartC wrote: > >>> On 13/07/2016 13:57, Richard Heathfield wrote: > >>>> On 13/07/16 13:41, BartC wrote: > >>> > >>>>> I still think that using * for deference, for multiply and for > >>>>> 'pointer-to' was a bad idea. The fact that C isn't going to change that > >>>>> doesn't mean I'm completely wrong. > >>>> > >>>> In C, they work fine, and in C, you're completely wrong. > >>> > >>> A**B doesn't mean raise A to power B, > >> > >> Why on earth would it? The mathematical notation for raising to a power > >> is A^B > > > >For some reason I was expecting this to come out as: > > B > >A > > > >but of course it didn't. (My newsreader sometimes interprets ^ as 'use a > >raised superscript', but I suppose it only does that for numbers: 2^3). > > > Actually A^B (with a caret) has not been uncommon for exponentiation > either. Ha! I was just reading this book where it means the Grassmann Exterior Product. https://sites.google.com/site/winitzki/linalg
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 07:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <dus28uFabooU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #90337 |
"Richard Heathfield" wrote: > (My newsreader sometimes interprets ^ as 'use a raised superscript', but > I suppose it only does that for numbers: 2^3). There's always someone who didn't read the specification. Usenet is intended to be text only and so, ^ means ^, no more, no less. Shame on the people who provided your newsreader. Somehow a mention of Dan Rather seems to fit here. (Dan Rather was a famous, well-paid, American newsreader done in by somewhat similar software. He is now reduced to peddling hemorrhoid pills or adult diapers or something.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 13:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nmak3m$4jb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90389 |
On 15/07/16 13:12, Osmium wrote: > "Richard Heathfield" wrote: > >> (My newsreader sometimes interprets ^ as 'use a raised superscript', >> but I suppose it only does that for numbers: 2^3). > > There's always someone who didn't read the specification. Usenet is > intended to be text only and so, ^ means ^, no more, no less. Shame on > the people who provided your newsreader. Well, I did know, really. I'd just allowed myself to forget. Anyway, the point I was making was that: B A is how mathemicians have represented powers for rather longer than programming languages have been around. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-18 09:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <vv0pob97892p7qnirkk70cmkjuakmg97j5@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #90337 |
On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 18:24:33 +0100, Richard Heathfield wrote: >On 13/07/16 18:14, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 13/07/16 15:11, BartC wrote: >>> On 13/07/2016 13:57, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> On 13/07/16 13:41, BartC wrote: >>> >>>>> I still think that using * for deference, for multiply and for >>>>> 'pointer-to' was a bad idea. The fact that C isn't going to change that >>>>> doesn't mean I'm completely wrong. >>>> >>>> In C, they work fine, and in C, you're completely wrong. >>> >>> A**B doesn't mean raise A to power B, >> >> Why on earth would it? The mathematical notation for raising to a power >> is A^B > >For some reason I was expecting this to come out as: > B >A all the text programming languages allow only a**b or a^b but for my mathematic read text experiece [and so i think for readability too even in programming languages] it is better b a with the correct fonts [b has to be more little than a] >but of course it didn't. (My newsreader sometimes interprets ^ as 'use a >raised superscript', but I suppose it only does that for numbers: 2^3). > >Every protocol has compromises. We know what Thunderbird's are. They're >a little quirky...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 18:43 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nm5ujf$fn0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90335 |
On 13/07/2016 18:14, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 13/07/16 15:11, BartC wrote: >> On 13/07/2016 13:57, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 13/07/16 13:41, BartC wrote: >> >>>> I still think that using * for deference, for multiply and for >>>> 'pointer-to' was a bad idea. The fact that C isn't going to change that >>>> doesn't mean I'm completely wrong. >>> >>> In C, they work fine, and in C, you're completely wrong. >> >> A**B doesn't mean raise A to power B, > > Why on earth would it? The mathematical notation for raising to a power > is A^B - and ** is just a kludge because it turns out that there's no > way to write small-font superscripts on a Model 33. There isn't now either, not for arbitrarily nested power operations, unless source is to be type-set. ** has a long history of being used for exponentiation in programming languages (notably in Fortran). But apart from not meaning a power operation in C, it's a little odd that the * after A means one thing, and the * before B means another. (C is far from alone in allowing confusing combinations of operators. In Python, ++A is quite legal, but it doesn't mean what it does in C! It means +(+A). But at least each + means exactly the same as the other. And Python uses ** to mean pow().) -- bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 20:15 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87lh15s61q.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #90339 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: <snip> > ** has a long history of being used for exponentiation in programming > languages (notably in Fortran). > > But apart from not meaning a power operation in C, it's a little odd > that the * after A means one thing, and the * before B means another. > > (C is far from alone in allowing confusing combinations of > operators. In Python, ++A is quite legal, but it doesn't mean what it > does in C! It means +(+A). But at least each + means exactly the same > as the other. And Python uses ** to mean pow().) Many allow you to write A--B. The usual advise is better layout (and some might even advocate parentheses) not that the language be re-designed. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 21:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nm67fm$hte$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90343 |
On 13/07/2016 20:15, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > <snip> >> ** has a long history of being used for exponentiation in programming >> languages (notably in Fortran). >> >> But apart from not meaning a power operation in C, it's a little odd >> that the * after A means one thing, and the * before B means another. >> >> (C is far from alone in allowing confusing combinations of >> operators. In Python, ++A is quite legal, but it doesn't mean what it >> does in C! It means +(+A). But at least each + means exactly the same >> as the other. And Python uses ** to mean pow().) > > Many allow you to write A--B. The usual advise is better layout (and > some might even advocate parentheses) not that the language be > re-designed. > Overloading "-" to mean both unary negate and binary minus is well known from school arithmetic. It's less of a surprise. Until a language uses "--" to have a third meaning (eg. decrement in C or pointer subtract in one my old languages). I would anyway use brackets around -B if "-" was adjacent to another operator. If I was in a hurry, I'd use a space. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 13:24 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnbn21xp4a.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #90346 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 13/07/2016 20:15, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> <snip>
>>> ** has a long history of being used for exponentiation in programming
>>> languages (notably in Fortran).
>>>
>>> But apart from not meaning a power operation in C, it's a little odd
>>> that the * after A means one thing, and the * before B means another.
>>>
>>> (C is far from alone in allowing confusing combinations of
>>> operators. In Python, ++A is quite legal, but it doesn't mean what it
>>> does in C! It means +(+A). But at least each + means exactly the same
>>> as the other. And Python uses ** to mean pow().)
>>
>> Many allow you to write A--B. The usual advise is better layout (and
>> some might even advocate parentheses) not that the language be
>> re-designed.
>
> Overloading "-" to mean both unary negate and binary minus is well known
> from school arithmetic. It's less of a surprise. Until a language uses
> "--" to have a third meaning (eg. decrement in C or pointer subtract in
> one my old languages).
In some languages "--" introduces an end-of-line comment.
> I would anyway use brackets around -B if "-" was adjacent to another
> operator. If I was in a hurry, I'd use a space.
I'd use `A + B` rather than `A--B` (unless I had some specific
reason to negate B and subtract the result from A, but then I'd
probably have a comment explaining it). And yes, I'd write
`A - -B`, or *maybe* `A - (-B)`.
Just curious, how long do you think it's going to take you to get over
your surprise that `*` has multiple meanings?
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 21:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nm69ib$p5g$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90347 |
On 13/07/2016 21:24, Keith Thompson wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > In some languages "--" introduces an end-of-line comment. I think Euphoria and Lua do as well as Ada. I don't use Ada and with the others just do some tinkering. > Just curious, how long do you think it's going to take you to get over > your surprise that `*` has multiple meanings? I think actually that although odd, it's a cool feature that A*B can have two meanings (as can A(B)). Like discovering that 'pour', 'pore', 'paw' and 'poor' are all pronounced (pretty much) the same way in English, or that '-over' can be pronounced four different ways depending on what letter precedes it (even more with -ough). That wouldn't be the case in the strictly phonetic language that I would design! These C quirks can still be a PITA though... -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 19:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5793c2cb.1380046@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #90347 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > Just curious, how long do you think it's going to take you to get over > your surprise that `*` has multiple meanings? How long is it going to take you to realise that he doesn't _want_ to understand C? His raison d'être, at least in this newsgroup, is to complain about how utterly wrong and incomprehensible normally written C is, and how we're all fools for not seeing that. Actually trying to understand the language he's griping about would not only cut into his complaining time, but might even force him to come to terms with the fact that C is not nearly as confusing as he's claiming it to be, and therefore, to admit that he's not as ground-breaking a prophet as he believes himself to be. And he can't afford that. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 13:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnh9btxq6b.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #90335 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> On 13/07/16 15:11, BartC wrote:
>> On 13/07/2016 13:57, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 13/07/16 13:41, BartC wrote:
>>
>>>> I still think that using * for deference, for multiply and for
>>>> 'pointer-to' was a bad idea. The fact that C isn't going to change that
>>>> doesn't mean I'm completely wrong.
>>>
>>> In C, they work fine, and in C, you're completely wrong.
>>
>> A**B doesn't mean raise A to power B,
>
> Why on earth would it?
Why not? There are a number of languages that use ** as the
exponentiation operator (Ada, Perl, Python, Ruby). And when I use
those languages, the fact that ** means exponentation has never been
a problem for me. All symbols are ultimately arbitrary. I'd say the
fact that mathematical notation uses superscript for exponentiation
is more arbitrary than the use of ** (or ^, or whatever). It only
seems less arbitrary because it happens to be older.
[...]
> Every language has compromises. We know what C's are. They're a little
> quirky, but they don't cause any problems to anyone who knows the language.
Agreed.
I consider it *slightly* inconvenient that we can't add "**" as an
exponentation operator in a future version of C, or as an extension,
because `x**y` already has a meaning. (For example, with an integer
right operand `x**2` could be substantially more efficient than
`pow(x, 2)`, while avoiding possible rounding errors.) But it's not
that big a deal. ("^^" is available, but I'm not holding my breath.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 21:34 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nm68k6$lr1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90345 |
On 13/07/16 21:02, Keith Thompson wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >> On 13/07/16 15:11, BartC wrote: >>> On 13/07/2016 13:57, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> On 13/07/16 13:41, BartC wrote: >>> >>>>> I still think that using * for deference, for multiply and for >>>>> 'pointer-to' was a bad idea. The fact that C isn't going to change that >>>>> doesn't mean I'm completely wrong. >>>> >>>> In C, they work fine, and in C, you're completely wrong. >>> >>> A**B doesn't mean raise A to power B, >> >> Why on earth would it? > > Why not? Indeed. But why? > There are a number of languages that use ** as the > exponentiation operator (Ada, Perl, Python, Ruby). And when I use > those languages, the fact that ** means exponentation has never been > a problem for me. Nor me. But it could just as well be &$& or )( or *! or @~ or _power_ or just about anything else. So why **? > All symbols are ultimately arbitrary. Yes, that'll do as a "why". <snip> -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 13:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln7fcpxnwb.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #90348 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> On 13/07/16 21:02, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>>> On 13/07/16 15:11, BartC wrote:
>>>> On 13/07/2016 13:57, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>> On 13/07/16 13:41, BartC wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I still think that using * for deference, for multiply and for
>>>>>> 'pointer-to' was a bad idea. The fact that C isn't going to change that
>>>>>> doesn't mean I'm completely wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> In C, they work fine, and in C, you're completely wrong.
>>>>
>>>> A**B doesn't mean raise A to power B,
>>>
>>> Why on earth would it?
>>
>> Why not?
>
> Indeed. But why?
Because exponentation (at least for positive integer powers) is
repeated multiplication, and repeating the multiplication symbol
`*` as `**` is nicely mnemonic.
(We probably use `*` for multiplication because it's the punctuation
symbol most similar to the mathematical `×`, which wasn't available in
early character sets, or `x`, which is a letter.)
And, of course ...
>> All symbols are ultimately arbitrary.
>
> Yes, that'll do as a "why".
>
> <snip>
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-13 22:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nm6bdp$vm6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90351 |
On 13/07/16 21:51, Keith Thompson wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >> On 13/07/16 21:02, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >>>> On 13/07/16 15:11, BartC wrote: >>>>> On 13/07/2016 13:57, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>>> On 13/07/16 13:41, BartC wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> I still think that using * for deference, for multiply and for >>>>>>> 'pointer-to' was a bad idea. The fact that C isn't going to change that >>>>>>> doesn't mean I'm completely wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> In C, they work fine, and in C, you're completely wrong. >>>>> >>>>> A**B doesn't mean raise A to power B, >>>> >>>> Why on earth would it? >>> >>> Why not? >> >> Indeed. But why? > > Because exponentation (at least for positive integer powers) is > repeated multiplication, and repeating the multiplication symbol > `*` as `**` is nicely mnemonic. By the same argument, multiplication is repeated addition, so we could use two addition symbols. And addition is repeated increment, which is ++ in C. So we'd have: Increment: ++ Addition: ++++ Multiplication: ++++++++ Exponentiation: ++++++++++++++++ :-) > (We probably use `*` for multiplication because it's the punctuation > symbol most similar to the mathematical `×`, which wasn't available in > early character sets, or `x`, which is a letter.) Yes. Now, we use it only for hysterical reasons. × would be a better choice in a modern language (and ought to be made easily accessible by way of a dedicated key on the keyboard). Similarly, ↑ could be used for exponentiation. Of course, that policy eventually leads to a keyboard of epic proportions. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 01:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <u8vgobpoph3gvkc0ihc634l82pd08nvmq8@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #90354 |
On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 22:22:00 +0100, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: >On 13/07/16 21:51, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >>> On 13/07/16 21:02, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >>>>> On 13/07/16 15:11, BartC wrote: >>>>>> On 13/07/2016 13:57, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>>>> On 13/07/16 13:41, BartC wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> I still think that using * for deference, for multiply and for >>>>>>>> 'pointer-to' was a bad idea. The fact that C isn't going to change that >>>>>>>> doesn't mean I'm completely wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In C, they work fine, and in C, you're completely wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>> A**B doesn't mean raise A to power B, >>>>> >>>>> Why on earth would it? >>>> >>>> Why not? >>> >>> Indeed. But why? >> >> Because exponentation (at least for positive integer powers) is >> repeated multiplication, and repeating the multiplication symbol >> `*` as `**` is nicely mnemonic. > >By the same argument, multiplication is repeated addition, so we could >use two addition symbols. And addition is repeated increment, which is >++ in C. So we'd have: > >Increment: ++ >Addition: ++++ >Multiplication: ++++++++ >Exponentiation: ++++++++++++++++ > >:-) > >> (We probably use `*` for multiplication because it's the punctuation >> symbol most similar to the mathematical `×`, which wasn't available in >> early character sets, or `x`, which is a letter.) > >Yes. Now, we use it only for hysterical reasons. × would be a better >choice in a modern language (and ought to be made easily accessible by >way of a dedicated key on the keyboard). Similarly, ? could be used for >exponentiation. > >Of course, that policy eventually leads to a keyboard of epic proportions. Probably a couple more shift keys and some additional legends on the keys would do the trick. Sort of what the old APL keyboards looked like. Even if you take all the Greek letters and mathematical symbols in Unicode, you've only got a few hundred characters to add.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 17:33 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <nmaakh$5up$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90381 |
Robert Wessel wrote: > On Wed, 13 Jul 2016 22:22:00 +0100, Richard Heathfield > <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: > >>On 13/07/16 21:51, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >>>> On 13/07/16 21:02, Keith Thompson wrote: >>>>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >>>>>> On 13/07/16 15:11, BartC wrote: >>>>>>> On 13/07/2016 13:57, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>>>>> On 13/07/16 13:41, BartC wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I still think that using * for deference, for multiply and for >>>>>>>>> 'pointer-to' was a bad idea. The fact that C isn't going to change >>>>>>>>> that doesn't mean I'm completely wrong. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In C, they work fine, and in C, you're completely wrong. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A**B doesn't mean raise A to power B, >>>>>> >>>>>> Why on earth would it? >>>>> >>>>> Why not? >>>> >>>> Indeed. But why? >>> >>> Because exponentation (at least for positive integer powers) is >>> repeated multiplication, and repeating the multiplication symbol >>> `*` as `**` is nicely mnemonic. >> >>By the same argument, multiplication is repeated addition, so we could >>use two addition symbols. And addition is repeated increment, which is >>++ in C. So we'd have: >> >>Increment: ++ >>Addition: ++++ >>Multiplication: ++++++++ >>Exponentiation: ++++++++++++++++ >> >>:-) >> >>> (We probably use `*` for multiplication because it's the punctuation >>> symbol most similar to the mathematical `×`, which wasn't available in >>> early character sets, or `x`, which is a letter.) >> >>Yes. Now, we use it only for hysterical reasons. × would be a better >>choice in a modern language (and ought to be made easily accessible by >>way of a dedicated key on the keyboard). Similarly, ? could be used for >>exponentiation. >> >>Of course, that policy eventually leads to a keyboard of epic proportions. > > > Probably a couple more shift keys and some additional legends on the > keys would do the trick. Sort of what the old APL keyboards looked > like. Even if you take all the Greek letters and mathematical symbols > in Unicode, you've only got a few hundred characters to add. No please. I already have two Chinese characters in addition the normal US keyboard on each key. OTOH what market would there be for such keyboards? Those few programmers? So would have to spent several cento-bucks for such a kbd. -- Reinhardt
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 05:02 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ea735c29-b1b8-4ba0-a60d-c4c9abcd35c3@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #90385 |
On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 10:33:14 AM UTC+1, Reinhardt Behm wrote: > Robert Wessel wrote: > > > Probably a couple more shift keys and some additional legends on the > > keys would do the trick. Sort of what the old APL keyboards looked > > like. Even if you take all the Greek letters and mathematical symbols > > in Unicode, you've only got a few hundred characters to add. > > No please. I already have two Chinese characters in addition the normal US > keyboard on each key. > > OTOH what market would there be for such keyboards? Those few programmers? > So would have to spent several cento-bucks for such a kbd. > Any mathematician of scientist, as well as programmers. Scholars would also want the Greek. Maybe you could use LCD technology to adjust the legend on each key according to state. It would cost a bit more than a normal keyboard, but I reckon you could knock one up for about 30 dollars retail. Electronics prices have really come down, and things don't cost so much now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-15 21:15 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <nmankv$gqh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90388 |
Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Friday, July 15, 2016 at 10:33:14 AM UTC+1, Reinhardt Behm wrote: >> Robert Wessel wrote: >> >> > Probably a couple more shift keys and some additional legends on the >> > keys would do the trick. Sort of what the old APL keyboards looked >> > like. Even if you take all the Greek letters and mathematical symbols >> > in Unicode, you've only got a few hundred characters to add. >> >> No please. I already have two Chinese characters in addition the normal >> US keyboard on each key. >> >> OTOH what market would there be for such keyboards? Those few >> programmers? So would have to spent several cento-bucks for such a kbd. >> > Any mathematician of scientist, as well as programmers. > Scholars would also want the Greek. > Maybe you could use LCD technology to adjust the legend on each key > according to state. It would cost a bit more than a normal keyboard, but I > reckon you could knock one up for about 30 dollars retail. Electronics > prices have really come down, and things don't cost so much now. You can buy buttons with integrated LCD. First I have seen them was in the 1980ties. But for 30$ you won't get a single button. See here <http://www.digikey.com/product-search/en/switches/programmable- display- switches/1115370?FV=fff40011%2Cfff804ea&mnonly=0&newproducts=0&ColumnSort=1000011&page=1&stock=0&pbfree=0&rohs=0&k=lcd+button&quantity=1000&ptm=0&fid=0&pageSize=500>. One button is 33USD in quantities of 1000. Prices for electronics are going down, but only if there is a real market for real quantities. How many such keyboards do you think you can sell worldwide? More than 1M? I might work if Apple cab convince its fanboys. -- Reinhardt
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web