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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #144773 > unrolled thread

Switching to C#

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

Contents

  Switching to C# "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-06-12 11:01 -0400
    Re: Switching to C# fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-06-12 08:21 -0700
    Re: Switching to C# Szyk Cech <szykcech@spoko.pl> - 2019-06-12 17:32 +0200
      Re: Switching to C# "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-06-12 12:04 -0400
        Re: Switching to C# Szyk Cech <szykcech@spoko.pl> - 2019-06-13 05:50 +0200
      Re: Switching to C# fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-06-13 15:43 -0700
    Re: Switching to C# gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-06-12 16:30 +0000
      Re: Switching to C# My nuts hurt <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2019-06-13 09:54 -0700
      Re: Switching to C# Jens Stuckelberger <Jens_Stuckelberger@nowhere.net> - 2019-06-14 15:28 +0000
        Re: Switching to C# gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-06-14 15:55 +0000
          Re: Switching to C# rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2019-06-14 10:25 -0700
            Re: Switching to C# scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2019-06-14 17:56 +0000
              Whatever will we do without Rick??? (Was: Switching to C#) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2019-06-14 18:02 +0000
                Re: Whatever will we do without Rick??? (Was: Switching to C#) rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2019-06-14 12:24 -0700
              Re: Switching to C# "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-06-14 14:24 -0400
        Re: Switching to C# "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-06-14 12:57 -0400
          Re: Switching to C# Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-06-15 01:29 +0100
    Re: Switching to C# "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-06-12 17:17 -0700
      Re: Switching to C# "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-06-12 23:41 -0700
    Re: Switching to C# Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-06-13 03:30 +0100
      Re: Switching to C# "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-06-14 08:43 -0400
        Re: Switching to C# nobody@example.org (Scott) - 2019-06-14 15:21 +0000
          Re: Switching to C# "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-06-14 12:55 -0400
            Re: Switching to C# Mr Flibble <flibbleREMOVETHISBIT@i42.co.uk> - 2019-06-15 01:28 +0100
          Re: Switching to C# Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-06-14 18:07 +0100
            Re: Switching to C# David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-06-15 09:44 +0200
            Re: Switching to C# fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-06-15 01:24 -0700
              Re: Switching to C# fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-06-15 02:04 -0700
                Re: Switching to C# fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-06-15 03:24 -0700
                  Re: Switching to C# fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2019-06-15 03:41 -0700
                Re: Switching to C# Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2019-06-16 15:16 +0300
          Re: Switching to C# Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-06-15 18:49 +0200
            Re: Switching to C# Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2019-06-15 17:58 +0100
              Re: Switching to C# Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-06-16 07:28 +0200
            Re: Switching to C# nobody@example.org (Scott) - 2019-06-16 01:58 +0000
              Re: Switching to C# Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-06-15 19:31 -0700
                Re: Switching to C# nobody@example.org (Scott) - 2019-06-16 08:20 +0000
                  Re: Switching to C# Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-06-16 02:24 -0700
                    Re: Switching to C# nobody@example.org (Scott) - 2019-06-16 17:03 +0000
                      Re: Switching to C# Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-06-16 14:24 -0700
                        Re: Switching to C# nobody@example.org (Scott) - 2019-06-17 03:02 +0000
              Re: Switching to C# Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-06-16 10:54 +0200
                Re: Switching to C# Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-06-16 02:26 -0700
                  Re: Switching to C# Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-06-16 12:43 +0200
                    Re: Switching to C# nobody@example.org (Scott) - 2019-06-16 17:05 +0000
                    Re: Switching to C# Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-06-16 14:26 -0700
                      Re: Switching to C# Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> - 2019-06-17 06:31 +0200
              Re: Switching to C# David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-06-16 12:23 +0200
                Re: Switching to C# Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2019-06-16 23:06 +0200
                Re: Switching to C# Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2019-06-16 14:27 -0700
                  Re: Switching to C# David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2019-06-16 23:33 +0200
              Re: Switching to C# James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2019-06-17 08:30 -0400
    Re: Switching to C# "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-06-13 00:06 -0700
      Re: Switching to C# "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2019-06-14 08:49 -0400
        Re: Switching to C# "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-06-17 23:30 -0700
          Re: Switching to C# rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2019-06-18 02:58 -0700
          Re: Switching to C# Mel <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2019-06-18 22:46 +0200
            Re: Switching to C# "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-06-18 14:00 -0700
              Re: Switching to C# Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-06-18 21:11 +0000
                Re: Switching to C# "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> - 2019-06-18 15:36 -0700
                  Re: Switching to C# rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2019-06-18 15:42 -0700
                  Re: Switching to C# Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2019-06-19 04:26 +0000
    Switching to C# Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2019-06-13 03:05 -0700
      Re: Switching to C# Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2019-06-13 12:30 -0400
    Re: Switching to C# My nuts hurt <cdalten@gmail.com> - 2019-06-13 09:51 -0700
      Re: Switching to C# luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2019-06-13 09:56 -0700
        Re: Switching to C# Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2019-06-13 22:24 +0000
          Re: Switching to C# Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2019-06-18 06:33 -0700

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#144939

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 14:24:07 -0700, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org>
wrote:
>"gcc -std=c99" should correctly compile all correct C99 programs.
>
>"gcc -std=c99 -pedantic" should do the same and issue all required
>diagnostics.  In this mode, it should be a conforming C99 compiler.
>
>"gcc -std=c99 -pedantic-errors" turns all required diagnostics into
>fatal errors.

Ah yes, that accounts for it. Thank you for checking.

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

#144913

> C does allow implicit declarations. You can call a previously
> undeclared function, and C will trust that the types you're passing
> are the types the function's expecting. I think it's a bad idea, and
> it usually yields warnings suggesting that it's a bad idea. I think
> any form of implicit typing is a bad idea.

Missing forward-declarations aren't a kind of implicit typing.

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

#144917

Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> writes:
>> C does allow implicit declarations. You can call a previously
>> undeclared function, and C will trust that the types you're passing
>> are the types the function's expecting. I think it's a bad idea, and
>> it usually yields warnings suggesting that it's a bad idea. I think
>> any form of implicit typing is a bad idea.
>
> Missing forward-declarations aren't a kind of implicit typing.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "implicit typing".

In C90, this:

    int main(void) {
        some_function();
    }

was valid, and would implicitly assume that some_function has been
defined with no parameters and a return type of int.  (And if that
assumption were violated, you'd have undefined behavior.)

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

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

#144919

>> Missing forward-declarations aren't a kind of implicit typing.

> I suppose it depends on what you mean by "implicit typing".
> In C90, this:
> 
>      int main(void) {
>          some_function();
>      }

In Java / .net that's different because the definition is checked.

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

#144924

On Sun, 16 Jun 2019 12:43:45 +0200, Bonita Montero
<Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> Missing forward-declarations aren't a kind of implicit typing.
>
>> I suppose it depends on what you mean by "implicit typing".
>> In C90, this:
>> 
>>      int main(void) {
>>          some_function();
>>      }
>
>In Java / .net that's different because the definition is checked.

[checks Newsgroups header]
[notes presence of C / C++ newsgroups]
[notes lack of Java / .net newsgroups]

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

#144931

Bonita Montero <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> writes:
>>> Missing forward-declarations aren't a kind of implicit typing.
>
>> I suppose it depends on what you mean by "implicit typing".
>> In C90, this:
>>
>>      int main(void) {
>>          some_function();
>>      }
>
> In Java / .net that's different because the definition is checked.

How is that relevant?

Also, when you post a followup please leave the attribution lines in
place for any quoted text.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

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

#144940

>> In Java / .net that's different because the definition is checked.

> How is that relevant?

Ths thread is about C# vs. C/C++.

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

#144918

On 16/06/2019 03:58, Scott wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 18:49:52 +0200, Bonita Montero
> <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>>> You don't have to declare everything before you use it.
>>
>>> Many people, including myself, consider that to be a bad thing.
>>
>> With todays IDEs it's not a pain when there aren't any forward
>> -declarations. Just right-click at the symbol and click the
>> option to guide to the definition.
>> I like C++ but I don't think forward-declarations are an adantage.
> 
> There are ways. Long ago I wrote an assembler that avoided forward
> declarations by making two passes over the source. C doesn't do that,
> for reasons.
> 
> C does allow implicit declarations. You can call a previously
> undeclared function, and C will trust that the types you're passing
> are the types the function's expecting. I think it's a bad idea, and
> it usually yields warnings suggesting that it's a bad idea. I think
> any form of implicit typing is a bad idea.
> 

It is worth being clear here that implicit declarations don't let you 
use functions properly before declaring them.  When a function is used 
with an implicit declaration, it is treated as taking an unknown number 
of unknown type parameters, using default argument promotions, and 
returning an int.  If there is a definition (or prototype declaration) 
of the function found later in the code, the compiler does not go back 
and correct the earlier usage.  So as you say, relying on implicit 
declarations is a bad idea.


It is also important to note that C++ is a bit more flexible here.  When 
declaring a class, functions declared within the class can refer to 
members and functions that are declared later in the class.  And 
template code can refer to identifiers declared later on (as long as 
they are declared before the template is invoked).

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

#144927

On 6/16/19 12:23 PM, David Brown wrote:
> On 16/06/2019 03:58, Scott wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Jun 2019 18:49:52 +0200, Bonita Montero
>> <Bonita.Montero@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> You don't have to declare everything before you use it.
>>>
>>>> Many people, including myself, consider that to be a bad thing.
>>>
>>> With todays IDEs it's not a pain when there aren't any forward
>>> -declarations. Just right-click at the symbol and click the
>>> option to guide to the definition.
>>> I like C++ but I don't think forward-declarations are an adantage.
>>
>> There are ways. Long ago I wrote an assembler that avoided forward
>> declarations by making two passes over the source. C doesn't do that,
>> for reasons.
>>
>> C does allow implicit declarations. You can call a previously
>> undeclared function, and C will trust that the types you're passing
>> are the types the function's expecting. I think it's a bad idea, and
>> it usually yields warnings suggesting that it's a bad idea. I think
>> any form of implicit typing is a bad idea.
>>
> 
> It is worth being clear here that implicit declarations don't let you 
> use functions properly before declaring them.  When a function is used 
> with an implicit declaration, it is treated as taking an unknown number 
> of unknown type parameters, using default argument promotions, and 
> returning an int.  If there is a definition (or prototype declaration) 
> of the function found later in the code, the compiler does not go back 
> and correct the earlier usage.  So as you say, relying on implicit 
> declarations is a bad idea.
> 
> 
> It is also important to note that C++ is a bit more flexible here.  When 
> declaring a class, functions declared within the class can refer to 
> members and functions that are declared later in the class.
C# works similar to this last sentence of yours. And, since there are no 
header files and all function definitions are inside the class 
definition, it becomes common that members can refer to others declared 
later.
It is as if it does a two pass compilation, so type checking is ensured.


   And
> template code can refer to identifiers declared later on (as long as 
> they are declared before the template is invoked).
> 

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

#144932

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> On 16/06/2019 03:58, Scott wrote:
[...]
>> C does allow implicit declarations. You can call a previously
>> undeclared function, and C will trust that the types you're passing
>> are the types the function's expecting. I think it's a bad idea, and
>> it usually yields warnings suggesting that it's a bad idea. I think
>> any form of implicit typing is a bad idea.
>> 
>
> It is worth being clear here that implicit declarations don't let you 
> use functions properly before declaring them.

It's even more worth being clear that C does not permit implicit
declarations, and hasn't since 1999.

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
void Void(void) { Void(); } /* The recursive call of the void */

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

#144933

On 16/06/2019 23:27, Keith Thompson wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>> On 16/06/2019 03:58, Scott wrote:
> [...]
>>> C does allow implicit declarations. You can call a previously
>>> undeclared function, and C will trust that the types you're passing
>>> are the types the function's expecting. I think it's a bad idea, and
>>> it usually yields warnings suggesting that it's a bad idea. I think
>>> any form of implicit typing is a bad idea.
>>>
>>
>> It is worth being clear here that implicit declarations don't let you
>> use functions properly before declaring them.
> 
> It's even more worth being clear that C does not permit implicit
> declarations, and hasn't since 1999.
> 

Yes of course, but you had already said that.  (And C++ has never 
permitted them.)

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

#144943

On 6/15/19 9:58 PM, Scott wrote:
...
> C does allow implicit declarations.

Not anymore

 You can call a previously
> undeclared function, and C will trust that the types you're passing
> are the types the function's expecting.

It also assumed that the return type was "int". If the definition of the
function returned a type incompatible with "int", the behavior was
undefined.

> I think it's a bad idea, ...

So did my instructor in my first C class, in 1979. So do I. So did the
designer of C++, which is why implicit int has never been a feature of
C++. So did the C committee, which is why they removed it in C99, which
became the new official version of the C standard two decades ago.

> ... and
> it usually yields warnings suggesting that it's a bad idea.

Some compilers provided such warnings even before C99 came out. Of
course, you might still receive only warnings. The only thing that you
can put in a C program that would require a conforming implementation of
C to fail to translate your program is a #error directive, which
explicitly instructs it to fail. That's why wise C programmers pay
attention to all warnings, even the non-fatal ones.

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

#144791

On 6/12/2019 8:01 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> All,
> 
> I'll never leave C/C++, but having had occasion recently to use C#
> recently I will be leaving these groups for daily monitoring, for
> major new development and related activity.  I'll only be back here
> periodically.
> 
> I've enjoyed and appreciated the help you've given me over the
> years.  My skills have improved by your input and tutelage, and
> I owe specific knowledge to certain people (Ben for understanding
> the term "discriminating union," for example).
> 
> There are several people here I will miss, and I wish all of you
> well.
> 
> Take care.
> 

Fwiw, Keep going on C Alive. I am willing to install, and give it a 
spin. :^) Send me an ISO.

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

#144840

On 6/13/2019 3:06 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> Fwiw, Keep going on C Alive. I am willing to install, and give it a spin. :^) 
> Send me an ISO.


Will do.  I'm still working on developing those games I mentioned pre-
viously.  It will probably be another year or so until I release CAlive
compared to my original timeline.

Life sometimes punches you in the face.  It's one of the reasons we all
need Jesus.  While this life is hard, the one He intended for us, and
the one He restores us to, is not.  If you read Genesis 3:8, the Bible
refers to "the cool of the day" when Adam was in the garden.

The world God gave us was different from today's world.  And He's return-
ing soon to restore that which was lost.  All those who believe in Christ
before His return will be part of His millennial reign, and will be here
for the full 1,000 years in a body like the angels that never ages, never
tires, but is always at the top of its game.  And that's just the pre-
cursor for what comes after in Heaven.

There's so much to learn from the Bible.  I encourage you each to invest-
igate it.  You've been lied to by the powers that be in this world about
what true Christianity is.  It's all about Jesus, and having that daily,
personal relationship with Him.  It's not religion.  It's love applied
to one's life (with an exclamation point in bold face type).

-- 
Rick C. Hodgin

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

#144955

On 6/14/2019 5:49 AM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> On 6/13/2019 3:06 AM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>> Fwiw, Keep going on C Alive. I am willing to install, and give it a 
>> spin. :^) Send me an ISO.
> 
> 
> Will do.  

Thanks.


> I'm still working on developing those games I mentioned pre-
> viously.  It will probably be another year or so until I release CAlive
> compared to my original timeline.

If you end up getting some time after you are finished, try to perhaps 
put it up on the web. Using WebAssembly or something?


> Life sometimes punches you in the face.

Big time. In very unexpected ways. Ahhh...

Sometimes, Life can:

https://youtu.be/FRRzXDxGQ4g

Well, you know. Stink?


   It's one of the reasons we all
> need Jesus.  While this life is hard, the one He intended for us, and
> the one He restores us to, is not.  If you read Genesis 3:8, the Bible
> refers to "the cool of the day" when Adam was in the garden.
> 
> The world God gave us was different from today's world.  And He's return-
> ing soon to restore that which was lost.  All those who believe in Christ
> before His return will be part of His millennial reign, and will be here
> for the full 1,000 years in a body like the angels that never ages, never
> tires, but is always at the top of its game.  And that's just the pre-
> cursor for what comes after in Heaven.
> 
> There's so much to learn from the Bible.  I encourage you each to invest-
> igate it.  You've been lied to by the powers that be in this world about
> what true Christianity is.  It's all about Jesus, and having that daily,
> personal relationship with Him.  It's not religion.  It's love applied
> to one's life (with an exclamation point in bold face type).
> 

I hope I can go to the Ultimate Good side after I finally die. I just do 
not know for sure what actually happens. Yikes!

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

#144956

On Tuesday, June 18, 2019 at 2:30:55 AM UTC-4, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> I hope I can go to the Ultimate Good side after I finally die. I just do 
> not know for sure what actually happens. Yikes!

It depends on if you have sin or not.

In this current age, in our society, for those who never came
to Jesus, they will die in this world and "go to sleep" the
Bible teaches.  They will remain asleep until Judgment Day when
they will be awakened, summoned by name to the Great White Throne
judgment by God.  People will be judged by what they did in this
world, as God has commanded all our acts, words, thoughts, etc.,
be recorded for that day.  Those books will be opened and we will
each give an account of our lives to God, self-condemning our own
souls in the process.

For the one who believes in Jesus, who has asked to be forgiven
for their sin, they do not have anything recorded in the books to
condemn them.  It's all been taken away by God, supernaturally
transferred to Jesus at the cross.  He died with our sin.  He
stood before God guilty of what we had done.  God punished Him
instead of us so that our sin was punished.  So we will come to
a different type of judgment before God.  It will be a place to
receive rewards for our service to Him.  No condemnation, only
accolades.

For the one with their own sin, the judgment will be final.  One
sentence carried out:  human souls tossed headlong into the Lake
of Fire:

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+20&version=NIV;KJV

God doesn't WANT to judge anyone:

    https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Peter+3%3A9&version=NIV;KJV

He wants to save everyone.  But only those who have their sin
forgiven by Jesus will be saved.  The rest will be cast into
Hell forever.

God keeps His Kingdom clean.  He has rules.  Those rules are
not burdensome rules, but more like "Don't touch the electrical
lines because you could be harmed" type rules.  Even God's rules
are designed to give us maximum enjoyment and fulfillment in our
lives, but people still cast Him and His rules into some kind of
tyrant or brute category, rejecting Him for their thoughts about
Him, never taking the time to realize their thoughts about Him
are wrong, that He's different than they think.

God reaches out His Son to all people in this present age.  He
does this to restore human souls, to take them out of judgment,
to make a way back to Heaven, back to eternal life, back to an
ongoing and right and proper relationship with God.

He lives us.  He's willing to forgive us because of that love.
But we must come to Him acknowledging our sin, repenting of it,
asking Him for forgiveness.  All who do are saved.  The rest re-
main damned.

I saw a YouTube video about this recently:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GN5SN1yrn8

Jesus is returning soon.  Those not saved will go through a seven
year tribulation.  Most will die during this time.  A remnant will
be saved.  After the seven years Jesus returns to setup His 1,000
year Millennial Kingdom.  At the end of that 1,000 years, then
comes Judgment Day.

Read about it, Chris.  You must be saved by Jesus Christ in order
to enter into Heaven.

-- 
Rick C. Hodgin

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

#144971

On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 23:30:44 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" 
<invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
> I hope I can go to the Ultimate Good side after I finally die. I 
just do 
> not know for sure what actually happens. Yikes!

You are not already there?

-- 
Press any key to continue or any other to quit 

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

#144972

On 6/18/2019 1:46 PM, Mel wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 23:30:44 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" 
> <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>> I hope I can go to the Ultimate Good side after I finally die. I 
> just do
>> not know for sure what actually happens. Yikes!
> 
> You are not already there?
> 

Not dead yet. Knocking on wood... :^)

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

#144974

On 2019-06-18, Chris M. Thomasson <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 6/18/2019 1:46 PM, Mel wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 23:30:44 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson" 
>> <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>> I hope I can go to the Ultimate Good side after I finally die. I 
>> just do
>>> not know for sure what actually happens. Yikes!
>> 
>> You are not already there?
>> 
>
> Not dead yet. Knocking on wood... :^)
You are not on Ultimate Good side already?

-- 
press any key to continue or any other to quit...
U ničemu ja ne uživam kao u svom statusu INVALIDA -- Zli Zec
Na divljem zapadu i nije bilo tako puno nasilja, upravo zato jer su svi 
bili naoruzani. -- Mladen Gogala

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

#144976

On 6/18/2019 2:11 PM, Melzzzzz wrote:
> On 2019-06-18, Chris M. Thomasson <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>> On 6/18/2019 1:46 PM, Mel wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 23:30:44 -0700, "Chris M. Thomasson"
>>> <invalid_chris_thomasson_invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
>>>> I hope I can go to the Ultimate Good side after I finally die. I
>>> just do
>>>> not know for sure what actually happens. Yikes!
>>>
>>> You are not already there?
>>>
>>
>> Not dead yet. Knocking on wood... :^)
> You are not on Ultimate Good side already?
> 

I always try to be a nice person: Is that good enough?

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

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

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

csiph-web