Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #94683 > unrolled thread
| Started by | MehdiAmini <atorrses@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-10 15:51 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-10-10 15:11 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 183 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
C Programming Tutorial on Youtube MehdiAmini <atorrses@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 15:51 +0000
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-10 17:14 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2016-10-10 13:25 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 11:06 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-10 22:18 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-10 16:29 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-11 00:07 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-11 08:36 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 09:51 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-11 07:09 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 09:48 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-11 10:10 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 11:54 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-11 08:13 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-11 07:49 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-11 12:28 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-11 09:51 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-11 21:02 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-10-13 14:48 +0200
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-13 10:20 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-15 12:18 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-15 16:47 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-15 14:31 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-15 15:21 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-15 22:47 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-16 05:19 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 08:37 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-16 17:59 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 15:48 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 00:27 +0300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-16 17:42 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-10-17 10:23 +0300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 09:07 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 18:28 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-17 10:08 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 17:51 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-10-18 13:29 +0300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-10-18 13:24 +0300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-16 13:29 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-16 18:36 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 11:39 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 15:54 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-16 15:38 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-16 23:53 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 19:40 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-17 06:31 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 09:09 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-17 14:16 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 19:40 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-16 19:23 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 22:33 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-10-16 20:09 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 09:13 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-10-17 10:58 +0200
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 09:14 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-17 07:44 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-17 13:22 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 17:55 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 09:22 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-17 08:32 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 17:21 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-17 16:07 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 21:00 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 21:49 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-18 10:45 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-10-17 10:55 +0200
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anand Hariharan <mailto.anand.hariharan@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 16:01 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-17 19:29 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-18 00:33 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-18 08:41 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-18 01:54 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-18 08:28 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 10:05 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-11 11:12 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 11:52 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 12:18 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-11 22:15 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 14:40 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-11 23:45 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 18:08 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-11 18:41 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 18:55 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-10-14 22:09 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-15 10:51 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-15 19:11 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-15 21:14 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-15 22:33 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-15 23:13 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-15 15:34 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-16 00:37 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-16 01:00 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-17 17:48 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-17 20:09 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-15 23:55 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-15 16:19 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-16 00:55 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-16 01:11 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-16 22:17 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-16 23:11 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-10-16 19:55 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-17 01:12 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-17 01:56 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-17 14:27 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-16 04:55 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-16 11:49 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-15 14:55 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-15 12:47 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-15 11:02 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-15 12:12 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-10-15 14:56 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-17 05:27 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-17 08:41 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-17 10:18 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-17 11:34 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-18 08:05 +1300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-17 12:39 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 21:17 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-10-17 22:46 +0200
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-10-18 14:06 +0300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-18 12:18 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-10-20 15:09 +0300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-20 14:29 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-10-23 13:15 +0000
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 16:17 +0300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-07 11:21 -0800
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-10-18 13:59 +0200
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-18 14:32 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 06:57 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-12 10:25 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 13:14 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-12 16:44 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 16:53 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-12 18:37 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 18:50 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-12 19:41 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 20:18 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-12 12:56 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-12 21:04 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-12 14:18 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-12 15:12 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-13 01:49 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-13 09:55 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-13 02:09 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-13 10:35 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-13 08:23 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 18:49 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 10:52 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-12 12:06 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-12 19:41 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-13 01:59 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-13 10:34 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-13 13:08 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-13 05:22 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-13 13:29 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-13 08:31 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-13 08:31 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 18:57 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-13 19:26 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-13 08:27 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-10-15 15:09 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 16:45 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-16 16:51 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-13 12:04 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-13 13:17 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-13 14:17 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-13 20:14 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-13 22:00 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-10-12 08:14 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-12 05:28 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 13:30 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 13:59 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-12 08:47 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 05:29 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-12 08:31 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-11 18:29 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 06:55 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 17:54 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 18:09 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-12 13:46 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 18:54 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 13:46 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-10 18:01 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-10 15:11 -0700
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
| From | MehdiAmini <atorrses@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-10 15:51 +0000 |
| Subject | C Programming Tutorial on Youtube |
| Message-ID | <ntgddi$a05$1@dont-email.me> |
Hi, A 4h:39m video on youtube teaching the C programmming language. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-CpG3oATGIs -- --------------------------------- --- -- - Posted with NewsLeecher v7.0 Beta 9 Web @ http://www.newsleecher.com/?usenet ------------------- ----- ---- -- -
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-10 17:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ntgepj$gc9$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94683 |
On 10/10/16 16:51, MehdiAmini wrote: > Hi, > > A 4h:39m video on youtube teaching the C programmming language. The first significant problem I spotted occurs 43 seconds into the video, where the programmer fails to check the return value of scanf. In the same program, standard output is not explicitly flushed before the program blocks for input, so on some systems the prompt might not be seen. Do I overlook the two spelling errors? Well, no, I don't. There are two spelling errors in the same program. At 55 seconds, there's a conformance problem: a printf specifier of %x is given a matching argument of type int *, and in the following line a %x is matched with an argument of type int **. Also at 55 seconds, the comment is misleading: "a pointer is a variable" - well, not necessarily. Those are the only problems I can see in the first minute. Anyone care to review the other 278 minutes? -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-10 13:25 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ntginc$qa1$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #94685 |
On 10/10/2016 17:14, Richard Heathfield wrote: > > Those are the only problems I can see in the first minute. Anyone care > to review the other 278 minutes? > We can ask Rick C. Hodgin to do it. He is spending all his time in church when he should be doing something constructive. Muslims spends their time in Mosques and look what has happened to them!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-10 11:06 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <88246021-6507-4fa2-8214-37c07e05ae82@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #94688 |
On Monday, October 10, 2016 at 1:21:57 PM UTC-4, Real Troll wrote:
> On 10/10/2016 17:14, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >
> > Those are the only problems I can see in the first minute. Anyone care
> > to review the other 278 minutes?
> >
>
> We can ask Rick C. Hodgin to do it. He is spending all his time in
> church when he should be doing something constructive. Muslims spends
> their time in Mosques and look what has happened to them!!
You can review my C tutorial video. It's targeted explicitly at XBASE
developers, and explicitly at Visual FoxPro developers:
http://www.visual-freepro.org/videos/2013_08_22__introduction_to_c_from_foxpro_dev_perspective.ogv
http://www.visual-freepro.org/videos/2013_08_24__intro2c_from_vfp_semicolon_comments_equal_flow.ogv
http://www.visual-freepro.org/videos/2013_08_24__intro2c_from_vfp_hexadecimal_numbers.ogv
(If you can't view the video, use VLC http://www.videolan.org)
I plan to continue with the instruction as I have several XBASE developers
who want to help with my C/C++ projects, but they don't know C well enough.
These videos are designed to migrate their existing knowledge base to C so
they can get up to speed more quickly.
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-10 22:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nth0i6$ms0$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94685 |
On 10/10/16 22:11, Stefan Ram wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >> Also at 55 seconds, the comment is misleading: "a pointer is a variable" >> - well, not necessarily. > > But then: > > "A pointer is a variable" - > > right at the start of chapter 5 of > "The C programming language"; > Brian W. Kernighan, Dennis M. Ritchie; > second edition; 1988. > > This might be wrong according to ISO/IEC 9899, but at least > the proponents of this are in good company, and ISO/IEC 9899 > possibly does not define "pointer" at all, so that there > might not be a direct contradiction to ISO/IEC 9899. It was because I recalled the K&R2 quote that I was reluctant to call this "wrong". But I still think it's misleading. (void *)0 is a pointer, but it isn't a variable (whatever a variable might be). -- 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 | 2016-10-10 16:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnmvibok9j.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #94694 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> On 10/10/16 22:11, Stefan Ram wrote:
>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>>> Also at 55 seconds, the comment is misleading: "a pointer is a variable"
>>> - well, not necessarily.
>>
>> But then:
>>
>> "A pointer is a variable" -
>>
>> right at the start of chapter 5 of
>> "The C programming language";
>> Brian W. Kernighan, Dennis M. Ritchie;
>> second edition; 1988.
>>
>> This might be wrong according to ISO/IEC 9899, but at least
>> the proponents of this are in good company, and ISO/IEC 9899
>> possibly does not define "pointer" at all, so that there
>> might not be a direct contradiction to ISO/IEC 9899.
>
> It was because I recalled the K&R2 quote that I was reluctant to call
> this "wrong". But I still think it's misleading. (void *)0 is a pointer,
> but it isn't a variable (whatever a variable might be).
As I've said here before, if there's any chance of confusion it's best
to think of the word "pointer" (as well as "array" et al) as an
adjective, not as a noun. If we talk about pointer values, pointer
expressions, pointer objects, pointer types, etc., we have a better
chance of avoiding ambiguity.
--
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 | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 00:07 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f0c8abcf-f84e-443b-88a3-4fb4d1db0e22@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #94698 |
On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 12:29:53 AM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > > As I've said here before, if there's any chance of confusion it's best > to think of the word "pointer" (as well as "array" et al) as an > adjective, not as a noun. If we talk about pointer values, pointer > expressions, pointer objects, pointer types, etc., we have a better > chance of avoiding ambiguity. > Generally if we say "void pointer" then "void" is considered the adjective which qualifies the noun, "pointer". English only occasionally allows noun adjective, and then usually in an archaic context (siege perilous). You could insist on "pointer-qualified char", but I doubt many people would use it. The convention for "char pointer" is too strong. You'd have better luck banning the word pointer and insisting on "indirected" or "by indirection". So "this function takes a char by indirection".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 08:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nti4ol$d2t$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94701 |
On 11/10/16 08:07, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 12:29:53 AM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >> >> As I've said here before, if there's any chance of confusion it's best >> to think of the word "pointer" (as well as "array" et al) as an >> adjective, not as a noun. If we talk about pointer values, pointer >> expressions, pointer objects, pointer types, etc., we have a better >> chance of avoiding ambiguity. >> > Generally if we say "void pointer" then "void" is considered the > adjective which qualifies the noun, "pointer". You've missed his point. > English only occasionally > allows noun adjective, and then usually in an archaic context (siege > perilous). But English is fine with adjective-chain noun (verray parfit gentil knight). What Keith is suggesting would work itself out for (void *)0 as "void pointer constant" (adjective adjective noun) or "pointer-to-void constant". > You could insist on "pointer-qualified char", No, that clause no noun, as far as Keith is concerned. He would have us say "pointer-to-char object" or "char pointer object". It is reasonable and consistent, as far as I can make out. > but I doubt many people > would use it. The convention for "char pointer" is too strong. Uh, what? I've never said "char pointer" in my life! There is no universal consensus here, not by any means. People can't even agree on how to pronounce 'char', never mind where in a sentence to put it! > You'd > have better luck banning the word pointer and insisting on "indirected" > or "by indirection". So "this function takes a char by indirection". No, I don't think so. The function doesn't take a char *at all*, whether by indirection or by any other means. The function takes a pointer-to-char value (adjective noun). -- 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 | 2016-10-11 09:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lna8eaomll.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #94702 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
[...]
> Uh, what? I've never said "char pointer" in my life! There is no
> universal consensus here, not by any means. People can't even agree on
> how to pronounce 'char', never mind where in a sentence to put it!
[...]
The pronunciation of "char" was settled by Seebs's C Infrequently Asked
Questions list:
19.26: How do you pronounce ``char''?
Like the first word of ``char *''. The accent is generally on the
first syllable.
https://www.seebs.net/faqs/c-iaq.html
--
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 | jameskuyper@verizon.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 07:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c306fcda-f050-4f81-a8a5-0c0461049186@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #94701 |
On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 3:09:31 AM UTC-4, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 12:29:53 AM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: > > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > > > > As I've said here before, if there's any chance of confusion it's best > > to think of the word "pointer" (as well as "array" et al) as an > > adjective, not as a noun. If we talk about pointer values, pointer > > expressions, pointer objects, pointer types, etc., we have a better > > chance of avoiding ambiguity. > > > Generally if we say "void pointer" then "void" is considered the > adjective which qualifies the noun, "pointer". English only occasionally > allows noun adjective, and then usually in an archaic context (siege > perilous). > You could insist on "pointer-qualified char", but I doubt many people > would use it. The convention for "char pointer" is too strong. You'd > have better luck banning the word pointer and insisting on "indirected" > or "by indirection". So "this function takes a char by indirection". Your response has nothing to do with what Keith was talking about. When the standard uses "pointer" as a noun, it's almost always in a context where it should be interpreted as a short form for either "pointer object" or "pointer value", where "object" and "value" are the nouns, and "pointer" is an adjective. English fully allows "void pointer object", where "void" and "pointer" are two different adjectives, with "pointer" modifying "object" and "void" modifying "pointer object" (it cannot be interpreted as directly modifying "object", because "void object" is a meaningless concept in C). The result is a short form for the full description: "object of the type pointer to void". Applying this to "char pointer", you don't come up with the nonsensical "pointer-qualified char", you come up with "char pointer object" or "char pointer value", whichever is appropriate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 09:48 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lneg3momr1.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #94701 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 12:29:53 AM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>>
>> As I've said here before, if there's any chance of confusion it's best
>> to think of the word "pointer" (as well as "array" et al) as an
>> adjective, not as a noun. If we talk about pointer values, pointer
>> expressions, pointer objects, pointer types, etc., we have a better
>> chance of avoiding ambiguity.
>>
> Generally if we say "void pointer" then "void" is considered the
> adjective which qualifies the noun, "pointer". English only occasionally
> allows noun adjective, and then usually in an archaic context (siege
> perilous).
"void" is a type name. Nobody should expect C to follow English grammar
rules.
If you say "void pointer", are you referring to an object of type
void*, a value of type void*, or something else? If there's any
chance of confusion, I'd say "void* object" (pronounced "void-star
object"), or "object of type void*" if I want to be even more
explicit. (Or replace "object" by "value".)
> You could insist on "pointer-qualified char", but I doubt many people
> would use it. The convention for "char pointer" is too strong. You'd
> have better luck banning the word pointer and insisting on "indirected"
> or "by indirection". So "this function takes a char by indirection".
"This function takes a char* argument", or "an argument of type char*",
or "a char* value", or "a char pointer value".
--
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 | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 10:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e03b25f0-606b-4600-a202-92b327639044@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #94728 |
On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 5:48:01 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > > If you say "void pointer", are you referring to an object of type > void*, a value of type void*, or something else? If there's any > chance of confusion, I'd say "void* object" (pronounced "void-star > object"), or "object of type void*" if I want to be even more > explicit. (Or replace "object" by "value".) > If I say "a bottle of beer" am I referring to to the liquid, the liquid/bottle assembly, or just the bottle?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 11:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnshs2n2cs.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #94734 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 5:48:01 PM UTC+1, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
>>
>> If you say "void pointer", are you referring to an object of type
>> void*, a value of type void*, or something else? If there's any
>> chance of confusion, I'd say "void* object" (pronounced "void-star
>> object"), or "object of type void*" if I want to be even more
>> explicit. (Or replace "object" by "value".)
>>
> If I say "a bottle of beer" am I referring to to the liquid, the
> liquid/bottle assembly, or just the bottle?
If I'm ever in a position to care, I'll let you know.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 08:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ntil0v$2m9$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #94698 |
On 10/10/2016 7:29 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >> On 10/10/16 22:11, Stefan Ram wrote: >>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >>>> Also at 55 seconds, the comment is misleading: "a pointer is a variable" >>>> - well, not necessarily. >>> >>> But then: >>> >>> "A pointer is a variable" - >>> >>> right at the start of chapter 5 of >>> "The C programming language"; >>> Brian W. Kernighan, Dennis M. Ritchie; >>> second edition; 1988. >>> >>> This might be wrong according to ISO/IEC 9899, but at least >>> the proponents of this are in good company, and ISO/IEC 9899 >>> possibly does not define "pointer" at all, so that there >>> might not be a direct contradiction to ISO/IEC 9899. >> >> It was because I recalled the K&R2 quote that I was reluctant to call >> this "wrong". But I still think it's misleading. (void *)0 is a pointer, >> but it isn't a variable (whatever a variable might be). > > As I've said here before, if there's any chance of confusion it's best > to think of the word "pointer" (as well as "array" et al) as an > adjective, not as a noun. If we talk about pointer values, pointer > expressions, pointer objects, pointer types, etc., we have a better > chance of avoiding ambiguity. > What's the difference between "pointer" and "integer"? Either can be a constant or a variable. Would you suggest using integer as an adjective, also? I understand what you're suggesting. But you aren't going to change anything because the vast majority of C programmers understand the term pointer when used as a noun. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jameskuyper@verizon.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 07:49 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <dac40279-936f-4a29-ba52-69b48c12ba14@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #94710 |
On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 8:13:43 AM UTC-4, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 10/10/2016 7:29 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > >> On 10/10/16 22:11, Stefan Ram wrote: > >>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > >>>> Also at 55 seconds, the comment is misleading: "a pointer is a variable" > >>>> - well, not necessarily. > >>> > >>> But then: > >>> > >>> "A pointer is a variable" - > >>> > >>> right at the start of chapter 5 of > >>> "The C programming language"; > >>> Brian W. Kernighan, Dennis M. Ritchie; > >>> second edition; 1988. > >>> > >>> This might be wrong according to ISO/IEC 9899, but at least > >>> the proponents of this are in good company, and ISO/IEC 9899 > >>> possibly does not define "pointer" at all, so that there > >>> might not be a direct contradiction to ISO/IEC 9899. > >> > >> It was because I recalled the K&R2 quote that I was reluctant to call > >> this "wrong". But I still think it's misleading. (void *)0 is a pointer, > >> but it isn't a variable (whatever a variable might be). > > > > As I've said here before, if there's any chance of confusion it's best > > to think of the word "pointer" (as well as "array" et al) as an > > adjective, not as a noun. If we talk about pointer values, pointer > > expressions, pointer objects, pointer types, etc., we have a better > > chance of avoiding ambiguity. > > > > What's the difference between "pointer" and "integer"? Not a lot. The standard contain no definition for "integer", only definitions of other things in which integer is used as an adjective modifying some other noun - the same is true of "pointer". The standard usually uses "integer" as an adjective, but it contains many instances where it uses it as a noun - the same is true of "pointer". In most cases where "integer" is used as a noun, it's intended to be interpreted as a short form for either "integer object" or "integer value" - just like "pointer". The biggest difference is one that doesn't apply to pointers. On occasion, "integer" is used as a noun that is short for "integer value" in the mathematical sense, to refer to a real number with no fractional part, rather than meaning "value of integer type". I've seen people deny this interpretation, claiming that a value always has a type, and that it's meaningless to talk about values of different types being the same, and in particular, that it's meaningless to talk about a value of floating point type being an integer value. However, the standard does precisely that, when it describes C's conversions as being value-preserving. The description of the conversion of integer values to floating point types says "if the value being converted can be represented exactly in the new type, it is unchanged." So, for example, the value of (double)3, which is 3.0, is unchanged from the value of 3, even though one value has the type double, and the other the type int. The same thing occurs in the descriptions of the various functions that take an argument of floating point type, and return a value of floating point type, but with the requirement that this value represent a mathematical integer, such as 3.0. These include ceil(), floor(), nearbyint(), rint(), round(), and trunc() (7.12.9). In all of those descriptions, "integer" is short for "integer value" in the mathematical sense; the C meaning of "value of integer type" would not make sense in those contexts. There is no analogous issue with the use of "pointer" as a noun. ... > ... Would you suggest using integer as an adjective, also? Most uses of the term "integer" in the standard ARE as adjectives. Understanding that even the uses as nouns are usually short for integer phrases such as "integer object" or "integer value" is not a particularly big change. > I understand what you're suggesting. But you aren't going to change > anything because the vast majority of C programmers understand the term > pointer when used as a noun. We wouldn't get so many confused inquiries about pointers if more C programmers understood that "pointer" as a noun is usually short for either "pointer value" or "pointer object", and that it is often important to pay careful attention to the distinction between those two meanings.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 12:28 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ntj3vk$pgi$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #94722 |
On 10/11/2016 10:49 AM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: > On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 8:13:43 AM UTC-4, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 10/10/2016 7:29 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >>>> On 10/10/16 22:11, Stefan Ram wrote: >>>>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >>>>>> Also at 55 seconds, the comment is misleading: "a pointer is a variable" >>>>>> - well, not necessarily. >>>>> >>>>> But then: >>>>> >>>>> "A pointer is a variable" - >>>>> >>>>> right at the start of chapter 5 of >>>>> "The C programming language"; >>>>> Brian W. Kernighan, Dennis M. Ritchie; >>>>> second edition; 1988. >>>>> >>>>> This might be wrong according to ISO/IEC 9899, but at least >>>>> the proponents of this are in good company, and ISO/IEC 9899 >>>>> possibly does not define "pointer" at all, so that there >>>>> might not be a direct contradiction to ISO/IEC 9899. >>>> >>>> It was because I recalled the K&R2 quote that I was reluctant to call >>>> this "wrong". But I still think it's misleading. (void *)0 is a pointer, >>>> but it isn't a variable (whatever a variable might be). >>> >>> As I've said here before, if there's any chance of confusion it's best >>> to think of the word "pointer" (as well as "array" et al) as an >>> adjective, not as a noun. If we talk about pointer values, pointer >>> expressions, pointer objects, pointer types, etc., we have a better >>> chance of avoiding ambiguity. >>> >> >> What's the difference between "pointer" and "integer"? > <snip irrelevant junk> I wasn't asking for a language lawyer to tell me what the standard says. I know what it says. I was asking Keith what he considered to be the difference. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jameskuyper@verizon.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 09:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <5dd7f77e-74fb-45dd-9f17-895b6277a205@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #94725 |
On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 12:29:40 PM UTC-4, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 10/11/2016 10:49 AM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 8:13:43 AM UTC-4, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > >> On 10/10/2016 7:29 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: ... > >>> As I've said here before, if there's any chance of confusion it's best > >>> to think of the word "pointer" (as well as "array" et al) as an > >>> adjective, not as a noun. If we talk about pointer values, pointer > >>> expressions, pointer objects, pointer types, etc., we have a better > >>> chance of avoiding ambiguity. > >>> > >> > >> What's the difference between "pointer" and "integer"? > > > > <snip irrelevant junk> > > I wasn't asking for a language lawyer to tell me what the standard says. > I know what it says. Actually, as you've frequently demonstrated, you have no idea what the standard says. You almost never cite the words of the standard, and never present arguments based upon those words, and you never respond to such arguments with anything other than insults (see above). You know what you want it to say, and that's what you think it does say, and the actual words of the standard play no apparent role in the process that leads you to that conclusion. That the committee could deliberately choose to write the standard to mean something different from what you think it ought to say is completely beyond your comprehension. And then you accuse those of us who have learned how to comprehend the correct meaning of those words of lacking "reading comprehension" skills :-} > ... I was asking Keith what he considered to be the > difference. That's OK. I can explain the difference (or more importantly in this context, the lack of relevant differences) for the benefit of others, whether or not you're willing to pay any attention to my explanation.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 21:02 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ntk21m$sr6$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #94729 |
On 10/11/2016 12:51 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: > On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 12:29:40 PM UTC-4, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 10/11/2016 10:49 AM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >>> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 8:13:43 AM UTC-4, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 10/10/2016 7:29 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: > ... >>>>> As I've said here before, if there's any chance of confusion it's best >>>>> to think of the word "pointer" (as well as "array" et al) as an >>>>> adjective, not as a noun. If we talk about pointer values, pointer >>>>> expressions, pointer objects, pointer types, etc., we have a better >>>>> chance of avoiding ambiguity. >>>>> >>>> >>>> What's the difference between "pointer" and "integer"? >>> >> >> <snip irrelevant junk> >> >> I wasn't asking for a language lawyer to tell me what the standard says. >> I know what it says. > > Actually, as you've frequently demonstrated, you have no idea what the standard says. You almost never cite the words of the standard, and never present arguments based upon those words, and you never respond to such arguments with anything other than insults (see above). You know what you want it to say, and that's what you think it does say, and the actual words of the standard play no apparent role in the process that leads you to that conclusion. That the committee could deliberately choose to write the standard to mean something different from what you think it ought to say is completely beyond your comprehension. And then you accuse those of us who have learned how to comprehend the correct meaning of those words of lacking "reading comprehension" skills :-} > No, I don't cite the language of the standard, because I'm not a language lawyer. I look at the *meaning* of the standard - which escapes you and the likes of you. It's why I won't discuss the standard with the language lawyers. >> ... I was asking Keith what he considered to be the >> difference. > > That's OK. I can explain the difference (or more importantly in this context, the lack of relevant differences) for the benefit of others, whether or not you're willing to pay any attention to my explanation. > And quite frankly, I don't give a shit what a language lawyer thinks. Including you. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 14:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ntnvr4$jaq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94753 |
On 12/10/16 03:02, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 10/11/2016 12:51 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 12:29:40 PM UTC-4, Jerry Stuckle >> wrote: >>> On 10/11/2016 10:49 AM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >>>> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 8:13:43 AM UTC-4, Jerry Stuckle >>>> wrote: >>>>> On 10/10/2016 7:29 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >> ... >>>>>> As I've said here before, if there's any chance of >>>>>> confusion it's best to think of the word "pointer" (as well >>>>>> as "array" et al) as an adjective, not as a noun. If we >>>>>> talk about pointer values, pointer expressions, pointer >>>>>> objects, pointer types, etc., we have a better chance of >>>>>> avoiding ambiguity. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> What's the difference between "pointer" and "integer"? >>>> >>> >>> <snip irrelevant junk> >>> >>> I wasn't asking for a language lawyer to tell me what the >>> standard says. I know what it says. >> >> Actually, as you've frequently demonstrated, you have no idea what >> the standard says. You almost never cite the words of the standard, >> and never present arguments based upon those words, and you never >> respond to such arguments with anything other than insults (see >> above). You know what you want it to say, and that's what you think >> it does say, and the actual words of the standard play no apparent >> role in the process that leads you to that conclusion. That the >> committee could deliberately choose to write the standard to mean >> something different from what you think it ought to say is >> completely beyond your comprehension. And then you accuse those of >> us who have learned how to comprehend the correct meaning of those >> words of lacking "reading comprehension" skills :-} >> > > No, I don't cite the language of the standard, because I'm not a > language lawyer. I look at the *meaning* of the standard - which > escapes you and the likes of you. It's why I won't discuss the > standard with the language lawyers. No, you don't look at "the meaning" of the standard - you make up your own interpretation, view it as gospel, insult anyone who disagrees, and respond to requests for justification with more insults. > >>> ... I was asking Keith what he considered to be the difference. >> >> That's OK. I can explain the difference (or more importantly in >> this context, the lack of relevant differences) for the benefit of >> others, whether or not you're willing to pay any attention to my >> explanation. >> > > And quite frankly, I don't give a shit what a language lawyer > thinks. Including you. > For someone who doesn't care, you spend a good deal of effort telling us how little you care. This group would be a little nicer if you simply didn't bother replying.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 10:20 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <nto573$77p$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #94819 |
On 10/13/2016 8:48 AM, David Brown wrote: > On 12/10/16 03:02, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 10/11/2016 12:51 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >>> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 12:29:40 PM UTC-4, Jerry Stuckle >>> wrote: >>>> On 10/11/2016 10:49 AM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >>>>> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 8:13:43 AM UTC-4, Jerry Stuckle >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On 10/10/2016 7:29 PM, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> ... >>>>>>> As I've said here before, if there's any chance of >>>>>>> confusion it's best to think of the word "pointer" (as well >>>>>>> as "array" et al) as an adjective, not as a noun. If we >>>>>>> talk about pointer values, pointer expressions, pointer >>>>>>> objects, pointer types, etc., we have a better chance of >>>>>>> avoiding ambiguity. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> What's the difference between "pointer" and "integer"? >>>>> >>>> >>>> <snip irrelevant junk> >>>> >>>> I wasn't asking for a language lawyer to tell me what the >>>> standard says. I know what it says. >>> >>> Actually, as you've frequently demonstrated, you have no idea what >>> the standard says. You almost never cite the words of the standard, >>> and never present arguments based upon those words, and you never >>> respond to such arguments with anything other than insults (see >>> above). You know what you want it to say, and that's what you think >>> it does say, and the actual words of the standard play no apparent >>> role in the process that leads you to that conclusion. That the >>> committee could deliberately choose to write the standard to mean >>> something different from what you think it ought to say is >>> completely beyond your comprehension. And then you accuse those of >>> us who have learned how to comprehend the correct meaning of those >>> words of lacking "reading comprehension" skills :-} >>> >> >> No, I don't cite the language of the standard, because I'm not a >> language lawyer. I look at the *meaning* of the standard - which >> escapes you and the likes of you. It's why I won't discuss the >> standard with the language lawyers. > > No, you don't look at "the meaning" of the standard - you make up your > own interpretation, view it as gospel, insult anyone who disagrees, and > respond to requests for justification with more insults. > >> >>>> ... I was asking Keith what he considered to be the difference. >>> >>> That's OK. I can explain the difference (or more importantly in >>> this context, the lack of relevant differences) for the benefit of >>> others, whether or not you're willing to pay any attention to my >>> explanation. >>> >> >> And quite frankly, I don't give a shit what a language lawyer >> thinks. Including you. >> > > For someone who doesn't care, you spend a good deal of effort telling us > how little you care. This group would be a little nicer if you simply > didn't bother replying. > This group would be a lot nicer if you just shut your trap and went somewhere else. Trolls like you give all programmers a bad name. And no, I don't give a shit what a troll like you thinks. You've already proven you know nothing and can't even understand the standards you are so fond of quoting. But then you have to keep quoting the standard because you've also proven you know nothing about real programming. So take your self-righteous attitude and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. That way it will be right next to your head. You're even worse than Rick. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 10 [1] 2 3 … 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web