Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #54051 > unrolled thread
| Started by | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-12-07 14:48 -0800 |
| Last post | 2014-12-12 02:24 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 299 — 34 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-07 14:48 -0800
Re: which one is better Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-07 16:14 -0800
Re: which one is better glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-08 01:28 +0000
Re: which one is better Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-07 19:01 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-08 00:32 -0800
Re: which one is better Siri Crews <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-08 01:40 -0800
which one is better "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2014-12-07 19:00 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-08 00:35 -0800
Re: which one is better gordonb.7ngx1@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2014-12-16 06:28 -0600
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-16 13:08 +0000
Re: which one is better Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2014-12-16 23:49 -0500
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-16 05:15 -0800
Re: which one is better gordonb.9nipv@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2014-12-17 02:22 -0600
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-17 01:21 -0800
Re: which one is better Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-18 02:21 -0600
Re: which one is better Vincenzo Mercuri <nomail@yahoo.it> - 2014-12-11 12:34 +0100
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 05:33 -0800
Re: which one is better Vincenzo Mercuri <nomail@yahoo.it> - 2014-12-11 16:27 +0100
Re: which one is better gordonb.cx8yb@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2014-12-16 06:58 -0600
Re: which one is better Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-12-11 15:05 +0000
Re: which one is better Vincenzo Mercuri <nomail@yahoo.it> - 2014-12-11 16:31 +0100
Re: which one is better Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-12-11 17:11 +0000
Re: which one is better Vincenzo Mercuri <nomail@yahoo.it> - 2014-12-11 18:44 +0100
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 10:19 -0800
Re: which one is better Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-12-11 20:07 +0000
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-11 20:52 +0000
Re: which one is better Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-12-11 22:10 +0000
Re: which one is better Vincenzo Mercuri <nomail@yahoo.it> - 2014-12-11 22:57 +0100
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-11 15:34 +0000
Re: which one is better Vincenzo Mercuri <nomail@yahoo.it> - 2014-12-11 16:45 +0100
Re: which one is better "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 07:56 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-11 16:08 +0000
Re: which one is better Vincenzo Mercuri <nomail@yahoo.it> - 2014-12-11 17:19 +0100
Re: which one is better "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 08:35 -0800
Re: which one is better Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-12-11 17:09 +0000
Re: which one is better "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 09:58 -0800
Re: which one is better Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-12-11 20:13 +0000
Re: which one is better glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-11 20:18 +0000
Re: which one is better rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2014-12-11 12:57 -0800
Re: which one is better Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-12 01:55 -0600
Re: which one is better Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2014-12-12 03:03 -0500
Re: which one is better Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-12 02:30 -0600
Re: which one is better glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-14 04:03 +0000
Re: which one is better Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-12-11 17:04 +0000
Re: which one is better "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 08:53 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-11 17:49 +0000
Re: which one is better "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 10:18 -0800
Re: which one is better "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 10:43 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 11:50 -0800
Re: which one is better John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 12:10 -0800
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-11 20:30 +0000
Re: which one is better John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 13:19 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 13:32 -0800
Re: which one is better gordonb.ygnb6@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2014-12-16 08:00 -0600
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-16 06:23 -0800
Re: which one is better gordonb.ne8xc@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2014-12-17 02:38 -0600
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-17 01:29 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-17 02:31 -0800
Re: which one is better gordonb.dwhy1@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2014-12-19 02:50 -0600
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-19 05:03 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-17 01:48 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-17 01:57 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-17 02:21 -0800
Re: which one is better Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2014-12-18 01:53 +0200
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-18 00:42 -0800
Re: which one is better David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-12-18 11:33 +0100
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-18 02:46 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-18 03:00 -0800
Re: which one is better David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-12-18 12:35 +0100
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-18 03:53 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-18 12:10 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-18 04:45 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-18 04:55 -0800
Re: which one is better David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-12-18 14:50 +0100
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-18 07:16 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-18 07:36 -0800
Re: which one is better David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-12-18 16:42 +0100
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-18 07:52 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-18 18:06 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-18 03:58 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-18 04:09 -0800
Re: which one is better David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-12-18 14:51 +0100
Re: which one is better Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-18 08:24 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-18 08:29 -0800
Re: which one is better Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-18 10:56 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-18 12:08 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-18 04:15 -0800
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-18 12:55 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-18 05:12 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-18 13:19 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-18 05:41 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-18 13:49 +0000
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-18 13:09 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-18 05:22 -0800
Re: which one is better Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2014-12-23 12:32 +0200
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-24 02:10 -0800
Re: which one is better John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 13:35 -0800
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-11 22:08 +0000
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-11 22:00 +0000
Re: which one is better Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-11 22:08 +0000
Re: which one is better Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-11 15:38 -0800
Re: which one is better glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-12 02:29 +0000
Re: which one is better Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-12-11 20:26 +0000
Re: which one is better rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2014-12-11 12:56 -0800
Re: which one is better Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-12 02:05 -0600
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-12 00:44 -0800
Re: which one is better Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-18 02:24 -0600
Re: which one is better Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-12-11 20:17 +0000
Re: which one is better Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2014-12-18 01:14 +0200
Re: which one is better "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 06:15 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 06:25 -0800
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-11 15:00 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 07:28 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 07:42 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 08:01 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 08:37 -0800
Re: which one is better Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2014-12-14 05:46 +0000
Re: which one is better John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 08:14 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 08:26 -0800
Re: which one is better "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2014-12-11 08:32 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-11 16:45 +0000
Re: which one is better glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-12 02:35 +0000
Re: which one is better rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2014-12-11 20:36 -0800
Re: which one is better Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-12-12 05:14 +0000
Re: which one is better rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2014-12-12 06:20 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-12 09:23 +0000
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-12 10:22 +0000
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-12 10:43 +0000
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-12 11:11 +0000
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-12 11:43 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-12 04:47 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-12 12:51 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-12 05:10 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-12 13:25 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-12 05:57 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-12 14:15 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-12 06:49 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-12 14:51 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-12 06:57 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-13 01:50 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-13 02:15 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-12 05:36 -0800
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-12 13:51 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-12 06:00 -0800
Re: which one is better Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-12 14:56 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-12 07:08 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-12 07:32 -0800
Re: which one is better Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-12 15:36 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-12 08:26 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-12 10:27 -0800
Re: which one is better Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-12 07:46 -0800
Re: which one is better David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-12-15 09:57 +0100
Re: which one is better David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-12-15 09:54 +0100
Re: which one is better John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2014-12-12 10:03 -0800
Re: which one is better Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-12 11:14 +0000
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-12 11:46 +0000
Re: which one is better Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-12 12:05 +0000
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-12 12:27 +0000
Re: which one is better Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2014-12-18 02:11 +0200
Re: which one is better glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2014-12-14 04:15 +0000
Re: which one is better Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-13 21:19 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2014-12-12 22:51 -0500
Re: which one is better gordonb.3w2i6@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2014-12-16 09:09 -0600
Re: which one is better Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> - 2014-12-11 16:12 -0600
Re: which one is better rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2014-12-11 14:29 -0800
Re: which one is better Lynn McGuire <lmc@winsim.com> - 2014-12-11 17:32 -0600
Re: which one is better rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2014-12-11 15:39 -0800
Re: which one is better Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-11 23:55 +0000
Re: which one is better rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2014-12-11 15:57 -0800
Re: which one is better Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-12 00:29 +0000
Re: which one is better rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2014-12-11 16:52 -0800
Re: which one is better Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-12 10:47 +0000
Re: which one is better rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2014-12-12 03:40 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-12 11:52 +0000
Re: which one is better David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-12-12 13:00 +0100
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-12 12:43 +0000
Re: which one is better David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-12-12 13:51 +0100
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-12 12:59 +0000
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-12 13:29 +0000
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-12 14:10 +0000
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-12 15:01 +0000
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-12 15:47 +0000
Re: which one is better gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2014-12-12 16:07 +0000
Re: which one is better Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-12 17:51 -0800
Re: which one is better Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-12 21:10 -0800
Re: which one is better Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2014-12-13 01:40 +0000
Re: which one is better Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-12 18:17 -0800
Re: which one is better Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2014-12-13 02:29 +0000
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-13 10:25 +0000
Re: which one is better Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-13 13:43 -0800
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-13 22:44 +0000
Re: which one is better Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-13 15:24 -0800
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-14 01:07 +0000
Re: which one is better Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-13 19:18 -0800
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-14 12:01 +0000
Re: which one is better Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-14 12:44 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-14 20:57 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-14 13:24 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-14 13:29 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-14 14:03 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-14 14:34 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-14 15:08 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-14 15:55 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 00:52 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-17 08:05 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 00:25 -0800
Re: which one is better Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-14 14:33 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-14 23:28 +0000
Re: which one is better Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-14 15:42 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-15 01:07 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 02:44 -0800
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-15 11:02 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 03:13 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 03:26 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-15 11:19 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 03:31 -0800
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-15 11:50 +0000
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-15 11:59 +0000
Re: which one is better Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-15 10:50 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-15 18:57 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 04:15 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 04:31 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 04:39 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 04:43 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 04:52 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 05:10 -0800
Re: which one is better David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-12-15 12:43 +0100
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-15 11:59 +0000
Re: which one is better David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-12-15 14:03 +0100
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-15 13:28 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 06:09 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 06:35 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-16 03:13 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-15 14:06 +0000
Re: which one is better Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-15 10:46 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 10:53 -0800
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-15 19:20 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 12:18 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 12:40 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 04:03 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 03:05 -0800
Re: which one is better Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-15 11:32 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 03:38 -0800
Re: which one is better Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-15 17:20 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 09:40 -0800
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-15 17:59 +0000
Re: which one is better Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-15 10:34 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 10:01 -0800
Re: which one is better gordonb.3j8fq@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) - 2014-12-16 10:18 -0600
Re: which one is better Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-12-15 18:08 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 10:37 -0800
Re: which one is better Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2014-12-15 21:05 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 14:10 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 14:18 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-15 22:22 +0000
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 14:58 -0800
Re: which one is better Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-15 15:34 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 17:25 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-16 02:55 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-16 03:20 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-16 03:37 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-15 05:00 -0800
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-15 01:41 +0000
Re: which one is better Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-18 02:33 -0600
Re: which one is better Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-18 00:42 -0800
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-14 21:47 +0000
Re: which one is better Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-14 15:55 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-14 16:03 -0800
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-15 00:54 +0000
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-16 10:55 +0000
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-16 11:11 +0000
Re: which one is better Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-12-15 14:01 +1300
Re: which one is better David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-12-15 10:09 +0100
Re: which one is better David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2014-12-12 15:58 +0100
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-12 15:41 +0000
Re: which one is better BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2014-12-12 18:27 +0000
Re: which one is better Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-12-13 08:42 +1300
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-12 19:59 +0000
Re: which one is better Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2014-12-12 07:39 -0800
Re: which one is better gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2014-12-12 16:05 +0000
Re: which one is better Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2014-12-12 08:16 -0800
Re: which one is better Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> - 2014-12-12 16:43 +0000
Re: which one is better Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-12 14:01 +0000
Re: which one is better rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2014-12-12 06:15 -0800
Re: which one is better Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2014-12-12 16:10 +0000
Re: which one is better rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com - 2014-12-12 08:28 -0800
Re: which one is better gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2014-12-12 15:27 +0000
Re: which one is better gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2014-12-12 14:39 +0000
Re: which one is better Morris Dovey <mrdovey@iedu.com> - 2014-12-12 11:11 -0600
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-12 09:34 -0800
Re: which one is better Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2014-12-12 21:47 +1300
Re: which one is better Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2014-12-16 12:30 -0500
Re: which one is better Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-12-16 12:21 -0600
Re: which one is better Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-16 13:06 -0600
Re: which one is better Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2014-12-16 16:44 -0600
Re: which one is better Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2014-12-16 18:21 -0600
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-12 01:04 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-12 02:06 -0800
Re: which one is better fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2014-12-12 02:24 -0800
Page 5 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 15 Next page →
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-18 04:09 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <05ec9757-7121-4274-a345-c3720d0e96ac@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #54927 |
W dniu czwartek, 18 grudnia 2014 12:35:18 UTC+1 użytkownik David Brown napisał: > > > > Then please start conforming to the "narrow forms" in this newsgroup. > You will find you become more part of the community and the discussions > - at the moment, many people simply skip your posts because the style > makes reading them an effort. We all know that you are perfectly > capable of writing reasonable English (no one expects perfection), with > decent punctuation and grammar - but your deliberately bad writing is a > pain. I dont want to be the part of community to much.. this grouping tendences seem to be often patholigical - can tyou maybe say why you feel so strongly integrated? I wonder if this is you imaginary or you really know much people here to such extent that you can say we.. It is a bit strange to saying not to one person but to the one who is a voice of the group - sci-fi like feeling (im joking a little) As to englis it is not the think jou like, I may wrote some parts in correct english but i really cannot know which one is in proper english and which one is not.. For me it is more fun than harm.. In general you presenting very reductive attitude, if i woul take this as you do i probably would have to drown in depression that i do not know english - but i prefer not to go reductive and had some childish pleasure of toying with english, I do not understand what is you source of hate to teenager-like fun, do the teenagars beats you?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-18 14:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <m6um5a$chc$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #54933 |
On 18/12/14 13:09, fir wrote: > W dniu czwartek, 18 grudnia 2014 12:35:18 UTC+1 użytkownik David > Brown napisał: >>> >> >> Then please start conforming to the "narrow forms" in this >> newsgroup. You will find you become more part of the community and >> the discussions - at the moment, many people simply skip your posts >> because the style makes reading them an effort. We all know that >> you are perfectly capable of writing reasonable English (no one >> expects perfection), with decent punctuation and grammar - but your >> deliberately bad writing is a pain. > > I dont want to be the part of community to much.. this grouping > tendences seem to be often patholigical - can tyou maybe say why you > feel so strongly integrated? I wonder if this is you imaginary or you > really know much people here to such extent that you can say we.. It > is a bit strange to saying not to one person but to the one who is a > voice of the group - sci-fi like feeling (im joking a little) > > As to englis it is not the think jou like, I may wrote some parts in > correct english but i really cannot know which one is in proper > english and which one is not.. For me it is more fun than harm.. In > general you presenting very reductive attitude, if i woul take this > as you do i probably would have to drown in depression that i do not > know english - but i prefer not to go reductive and had some childish > pleasure of toying with english, I do not understand what is you > source of hate to teenager-like fun, do the teenagars beats you? > I have nothing against teenagers who act like teenagers. But I dislike it when someone who claims to be an adult acts like they are stuck in puberty.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-18 08:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lnsigdc4e6.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #54949 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
[...]
> I have nothing against teenagers who act like teenagers. But I dislike
> it when someone who claims to be an adult acts like they are stuck in
> puberty.
You might consider the possibility that it's time to give up. "fir"
isn't going to change his behavior.
--
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 | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-18 08:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <917e23f9-32d7-4045-ba01-89d94974c013@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #54961 |
W dniu czwartek, 18 grudnia 2014 17:24:45 UTC+1 użytkownik Keith Thompson napisał: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > [...] > > I have nothing against teenagers who act like teenagers. But I dislike > > it when someone who claims to be an adult acts like they are stuck in > > puberty. > > You might consider the possibility that it's time to give up. "fir" > isn't going to change his behavior. > i'm not
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-18 10:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lnfvccdbwr.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #54962 |
fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> writes:
> W dniu czwartek, 18 grudnia 2014 17:24:45 UTC+1 użytkownik Keith Thompson napisał:
>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>> [...]
>> > I have nothing against teenagers who act like teenagers. But I dislike
>> > it when someone who claims to be an adult acts like they are stuck in
>> > puberty.
>>
>> You might consider the possibility that it's time to give up. "fir"
>> isn't going to change his behavior.
>
> i'm not
Well there it is. The solution is trivial, and is left as an exercise
for your killfile.
--
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 <invalid@see.sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-18 12:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <Cszkw.133326$607.51616@fx21.am4> |
| In reply to | #54925 |
fir wrote:
> W dniu czwartek, 18 grudnia 2014 11:33:55 UTC+1 użytkownik David Brown
> napisał:
>> On 18/12/14 00:53, Phil Carmody wrote:
>> > gordonb.ne8xc@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) writes:
>> >>> i was proposing some core-c (C2) improvement by manually stating type
>> >>> of storage
>> >>>
>> >>> foo(auto int x, register int y, static int z)
>> >>> {
>> >>> auto int a;
>> >>> register int b;
>> >>> static int c[10];
>> >>> heap int d[100];
>> >>> }
>> >>
>> >> Why do you think that ....
>> >
>> > Do us a favour, burdybaby, and if you're going to refer
>> > to an unidentifiable poster, go the whole hog and please
>> > use "this poster" (plus the appropriate conjugation of
>> > the verb) rather than "you".
>> >
>> > Phil
>> >
>>
>> Gordon has decided long ago that although quotation attributions are
>> polite, standard, helpful and perhaps even legally required, /he/ is
>> special and does not use attributions.
>>
>> In this case, of course, it is obvious that "you" was "fir" - another
>> poster who considers himself above the normal rules of society.
>
> those normal rules of society are your delusion,
Look at it practically. You frequently ask questions here. By choosing to
ask those questions in a deliberately obscure way, you increase the time it
takes for people to answer them. Inevitably, some people will decide not to
bother taking extra time to decipher your code. So your strategy reduces the
number of people likely to answer your question. I generally invest about
five seconds reading your articles, to find out whether you've learned any
manners, and then move on when I discover that you haven't. You may not care
about that. But the harder your articles are to read, the more people will
make the same decision that I did, and the only loser will be you.
> say "metal society" has
> some quite other rules than some "business society" and so on
>
> The thing that matters more is "attacking attitude" that i am against of
> (no need to say more on this i think)
The attitude you are attacking is the attitude that people should have the
courtesy to write in an easily intelligible manner wherever possible. I
think that's a good attitude, no matter how much you attack it.
--
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 | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-18 04:15 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <fecb9e88-6cd1-49d1-b129-68597f8c84f4@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #54932 |
W dniu czwartek, 18 grudnia 2014 13:08:11 UTC+1 użytkownik Richard Heathfield napisał:
> fir wrote:
>
> > W dniu czwartek, 18 grudnia 2014 11:33:55 UTC+1 użytkownik David Brown
> > napisał:
> >> On 18/12/14 00:53, Phil Carmody wrote:
> >> > gordonb.ne8xc@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) writes:
> >> >>> i was proposing some core-c (C2) improvement by manually stating type
> >> >>> of storage
> >> >>>
> >> >>> foo(auto int x, register int y, static int z)
> >> >>> {
> >> >>> auto int a;
> >> >>> register int b;
> >> >>> static int c[10];
> >> >>> heap int d[100];
> >> >>> }
> >> >>
> >> >> Why do you think that ....
> >> >
> >> > Do us a favour, burdybaby, and if you're going to refer
> >> > to an unidentifiable poster, go the whole hog and please
> >> > use "this poster" (plus the appropriate conjugation of
> >> > the verb) rather than "you".
> >> >
> >> > Phil
> >> >
> >>
> >> Gordon has decided long ago that although quotation attributions are
> >> polite, standard, helpful and perhaps even legally required, /he/ is
> >> special and does not use attributions.
> >>
> >> In this case, of course, it is obvious that "you" was "fir" - another
> >> poster who considers himself above the normal rules of society.
> >
> > those normal rules of society are your delusion,
>
> Look at it practically. You frequently ask questions here. By choosing to
> ask those questions in a deliberately obscure way, you increase the time it
> takes for people to answer them. Inevitably, some people will decide not to
> bother taking extra time to decipher your code. So your strategy reduces the
> number of people likely to answer your question. I generally invest about
> five seconds reading your articles, to find out whether you've learned any
> manners, and then move on when I discover that you haven't. You may not care
> about that. But the harder your articles are to read, the more people will
> make the same decision that I did, and the only loser will be you.
>
This is not to much practical,
Some of my post my be hard to decipher but it is not intended, his is side effect of my style.. sometimes i found it bad (where i see some time) but mostly i dont care, I may even prefer to not have to much answerers, maybe the one who go throught that would be the better one?
(you know like knights droping out in the way to the dragon ;/ )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-18 12:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <X8Akw.88437$P42.17074@fx24.am4> |
| In reply to | #54935 |
On 18/12/2014 12:15, fir wrote: > This is not to much practical, > Some of my post my be hard to decipher but it is not intended, his is side effect of my style.. sometimes i found it bad (where i see some time) but mostly i dont care, I may even prefer to not have to much answerers, maybe the one who go throught that would be the better one? > (you know like knights droping out in the way to the dragon ;/ ) Yes, trying to read your posts can be challenging. I don't believe that is largely due to not knowing English either; if you can program, then you should be able to grasp the basic rules. But it seems your posting style is either lazy or deliberate (you may have mentioned a disability at some point, but again, if you can get program syntax exactly right, then you can write more clearly too). It would be interesting to see you provide a version of a post in your native language to see if that is in a similar style. But think about this: suppose the people who respond to you also adopt a similarly sloppy, uncaring approach which makes it very difficult to make sense of what they're trying to say. Would that be OK with you, or annoying? -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-18 05:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <85c8b473-57bc-460a-a317-f3283650ac3a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #54938 |
W dniu czwartek, 18 grudnia 2014 13:55:28 UTC+1 użytkownik Bart napisał: > On 18/12/2014 12:15, fir wrote: > > > This is not to much practical, > > Some of my post my be hard to decipher but it is not intended, his is side effect of my style.. sometimes i found it bad (where i see some time) but mostly i dont care, I may even prefer to not have to much answerers, maybe the one who go throught that would be the better one? > > (you know like knights droping out in the way to the dragon ;/ ) > > Yes, trying to read your posts can be challenging. I don't believe that > is largely due to not knowing English either; if you can program, then > you should be able to grasp the basic rules. But it seems your posting > style is either lazy or deliberate (you may have mentioned a disability > at some point, but again, if you can get program syntax exactly right, > then you can write more clearly too). > > It would be interesting to see you provide a version of a post in your > native language to see if that is in a similar style. > > But think about this: suppose the people who respond to you also adopt a > similarly sloppy, uncaring approach which makes it very difficult to > make sense of what they're trying to say. Would that be OK with you, or > annoying? > cannot answer now, move this discussion to other time
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-18 13:19 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <XvAkw.708589$u67.74455@fx08.am4> |
| In reply to | #54938 |
BartC wrote: <snip> > > But think about this: suppose the people who respond to you also adopt a > similarly sloppy, uncaring approach which makes it very difficult to > make sense of what they're trying to say. Would that be OK with you, or > annoying? I tried that. He didn't seem pleased. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-18 05:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <30a05639-d5c1-4f80-ad3f-acc07686f771@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #54943 |
W dniu czwartek, 18 grudnia 2014 14:20:00 UTC+1 użytkownik Richard Heathfield napisał: > > I tried that. He didn't seem pleased. > didnt notice that, maybe try to say something interesting ;-0 (ps. my polish style it yet worse, i usually wrote long passages about how tired i am, and how bad i feel, and how weak my present health is, thats true (or some pasages on morality and spirit which is kind of my 'hobby')
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-18 13:49 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <1YAkw.185341$ot.54612@fx13.am4> |
| In reply to | #54946 |
fir wrote: > W dniu czwartek, 18 grudnia 2014 14:20:00 UTC+1 użytkownik Richard > Heathfield napisał: >> >> I tried that. He didn't seem pleased. >> > didnt notice that, No, you wouldn't have. Eliza will be pleased. > maybe try to say something interesting ;-0 If you can make your areas of interest in C plain and intelligible, I will be glad to oblige. <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 | Richard Heathfield <invalid@see.sig.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-18 13:09 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fmAkw.103230$812.9470@fx20.am4> |
| In reply to | #54935 |
fir wrote: > W dniu czwartek, 18 grudnia 2014 13:08:11 UTC+1 użytkownik Richard > Heathfield napisał: <snip> >> Look at it practically. You frequently ask questions here. By choosing to >> ask those questions in a deliberately obscure way, you increase the time >> it takes for people to answer them. Inevitably, some people will decide >> not to bother taking extra time to decipher your code. [Here, I meant "code" in the sense of "stuff that's hard to decipher", not in the sense of "program code".] >> So your strategy >> reduces the number of people likely to answer your question. I generally >> invest about five seconds reading your articles, to find out whether >> you've learned any manners, and then move on when I discover that you >> haven't. You may not care about that. But the harder your articles are to >> read, the more people will make the same decision that I did, and the >> only loser will be you. >> > This is not to much practical, > Some of my post my be hard to decipher but it is not intended, Unintentional obscurity is not the problem. > his is side > effect of my style.. If you know that other people find your style to be obscure, and you keep on with that style, effectively you are being deliberately obscure. > sometimes i found it bad (where i see some time) but > mostly i dont care, That's your privilege, but it has consequences. > I may even prefer to not have to much answerers, maybe > the one who go throught that would be the better one? It's possible, of course. But it doesn't sound very likely. > (you know like > knights droping out in the way to the dragon ;/ ) Here's a better analogy: it's like someone asking for help with C programming, but then deliberately making himself as unclear as possible, until the people best able to help him decide that helping him is too costly, leaving him to the mercy of those who are less able to help him. -- 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 | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-18 05:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b59d550e-efa3-4a80-8781-6ead8adc4b5c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #54941 |
W dniu czwartek, 18 grudnia 2014 14:09:40 UTC+1 użytkownik Richard Heathfield napisał: > > Here's a better analogy: it's like someone asking for help with C > programming, but then deliberately making himself as unclear as possible, > until the people best able to help him decide that helping him is too > costly, leaving him to the mercy of those who are less able to help him. Im not asking for help, i came here to share some thoughts (on c and coding in c, not sure how long i stay here, probably not to long as i have some occupations and will be must going)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-23 12:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <877fxi4pwk.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #54923 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> On 18/12/14 00:53, Phil Carmody wrote:
> > gordonb.ne8xc@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) writes:
> >>> i was proposing some core-c (C2) improvement by manually stating type of
> >>> storage
> >>>
> >>> foo(auto int x, register int y, static int z)
> >>> {
> >>> auto int a;
> >>> register int b;
> >>> static int c[10];
> >>> heap int d[100];
> >>> }
> >>
> >> Why do you think that ....
> >
> > Do us a favour, burdybaby, and if you're going to refer
> > to an unidentifiable poster, go the whole hog and please
> > use "this poster" (plus the appropriate conjugation of
> > the verb) rather than "you".
>
> Gordon has decided long ago that although quotation attributions are
> polite, standard, helpful and perhaps even legally required, /he/ is
> special and does not use attributions.
>
> In this case, of course, it is obvious that "you" was "fir" - another
> poster who considers himself above the normal rules of society.
Never heard of him. Must have been in my killfile longer than
my pondlife-like memory for such things.
Which is why any sensible poster would have left the attribution
on, so that I could just hit 'n', and skip responses to known
wastes of bandwidth.
Phil
--
The best part of re-inventing the wheel is that you get to pick how
many sides the new one has. -- egcagrac0 on SoylentNews
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-24 02:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ac04529c-f59c-4181-a012-e8b819a0e0ce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #55346 |
W dniu wtorek, 23 grudnia 2014 11:33:10 UTC+1 użytkownik Phil Carmody napisał:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> > On 18/12/14 00:53, Phil Carmody wrote:
> > > gordonb.ne8xc@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt) writes:
> > >>> i was proposing some core-c (C2) improvement by manually stating type of
> > >>> storage
> > >>>
> > >>> foo(auto int x, register int y, static int z)
> > >>> {
> > >>> auto int a;
> > >>> register int b;
> > >>> static int c[10];
> > >>> heap int d[100];
> > >>> }
> > >>
> > >> Why do you think that ....
> > >
> > > Do us a favour, burdybaby, and if you're going to refer
> > > to an unidentifiable poster, go the whole hog and please
> > > use "this poster" (plus the appropriate conjugation of
> > > the verb) rather than "you".
> >
> > Gordon has decided long ago that although quotation attributions are
> > polite, standard, helpful and perhaps even legally required, /he/ is
> > special and does not use attributions.
> >
> > In this case, of course, it is obvious that "you" was "fir" - another
> > poster who considers himself above the normal rules of society.
>
> Never heard of him. Must have been in my killfile longer than
> my pondlife-like memory for such things.
>
> Which is why any sensible poster would have left the attribution
> on, so that I could just hit 'n', and skip responses to known
> wastes of bandwidth.
amazing credo stupidity diver,
(i gave this word to not leaving tha sad feeling that anyone is so reductional here: mam moc wskrzeszania, nieststy aby ja cwiczyc musze cwiczyc umieranie ("i got a powwer to ressurect, sadly to train this i must also train dying" - with christmmasy words of hope and reinforcement)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-11 13:35 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <58d5bfc3-6b24-4300-a13c-a3917b377357@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #54307 |
On Thursday, December 11, 2014 3:19:57 PM UTC-6, John Bode wrote: > On Thursday, December 11, 2014 2:30:47 PM UTC-6, Bart wrote: [snip] > > > > Do hard disk drives still have data encoded as fixed-length records? > > (Sectors that were 512-bytes long last time I bothered to check.) Yet > > OSes still manage to implement byte-oriented file systems. How is that > > possible? > > > > Record- or byte-orientation is a function of the *file system*, not the > hardware. And yes, there are still record-oriented file systems in use > out there. > > > -- > > Bartc Here's an interesting whitepaper that discusses some of the issues you will encounter when porting applications and data from an HP3000 running MPE/iX to a Unix-like platform: http://www.hp.com/products1/evolution/e3000/download/5981-3063EN.pdf Some highlights: > Each MPE file is divided into records. The length of each record is > user-definable; it may be fixed or variable. That is, each record may > have the same length, or the records in a file may vary in length. The > file system is aware of this file structure and ensures that data is > read and written only in record-sized blocks. If your program tries to > write a single byte to an 80 byte record, the file system will write > the entire 80 bytes, padding the single data byte with blanks or > binary zeroes [2] > ... > MPE artificially restricts the size of files; this is different from > the behavior of the file systems of the recommended target platform. For > example, if you create a file on a typical UNIX system, there is, (by > default) no limit to the amount of data that can be written to that file. > On MPE, when you create a file, you must specify a filesize. If you fail > to specify one, a default value will be assumed. This filesize represents > the maximum number of records that can be written to that file. If you > create a file on an MPE system, you cannot write more records to the file > than the limit specified in the filesize. HP3000 was EOL'd by HP in the early 2000s (resulting in my first layoff, yay), but of course people held on to those systems as long as they could since they were long since paid for, so porting from HP3000 to new systems is an ongoing concern.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-11 22:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <jBoiw.64099$td3.23349@fx34.am4> |
| In reply to | #54309 |
On 11/12/2014 21:35, John Bode wrote: > Here's an interesting whitepaper that discusses some of the issues > you will encounter when porting applications and data from an HP3000 > running MPE/iX to a Unix-like platform: > > http://www.hp.com/products1/evolution/e3000/download/5981-3063EN.pdf > > Some highlights: > >> Each MPE file is divided into records. The length of each record is >> user-definable; OK, so we just have a record length of one byte; end of problem! -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-11 22:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <fuoiw.67965$kK3.34231@fx10.am4> |
| In reply to | #54307 |
On 11/12/2014 21:19, John Bode wrote: > On Thursday, December 11, 2014 2:30:47 PM UTC-6, Bart wrote: >> On 11/12/2014 20:10, John Bode wrote: > Yes, really. Just because you never left the country doesn't mean other > countries don't exist. But I can choose to use only my own language, write in that language etc and not worry about what happens in other countries because I don't intend to go there. And people in those countries can do exactly the same. >> I spent a couple of decades working with MSDOS and then >> Windows systems, which have byte-oriented files. Why would I need to >> care about anything else? So my application is not portable, so what? > Just because *you* never needed to work on something other than DOS and > Windows doesn't mean the world isn't that big. In my market, the world *was* that big. It's nearly 20 years since I was involved in anything commercial, but then, a consumer or small business buying a computer would most likely be using Windows. A few wanted to run Linux or use a Mac, but that was less than 1% of my customers. I never head of anyone wanting to run on MPE/iX (actually, I've never heard of MPE/iX). > There are a lot of legacy > mainframe and mini systems still in use in banking and financial > applications. I should know, I'm having to talk to them. > > I spent the 90s and early 2000s working on VMS, Encore/Gould, multiple > flavors of Windows, multiple flavors of Unix, OS/2, MPE/iX, and even had to > touch a couple of mainframes. I had to help figure out how to port an app > from MPE/iX (which used a record-based, transactional file system) to > Windows, which required a substantial rewrite since Windows couldn't lock > individual file records like MPE/iX could. OK, so if I wanted to read a 20-line configuration file into memory, I can't do the obvious thing (open the file, get the size, allocate the memory, read it and close it), because there might be some dinosaur OSs out there where that might not work? Even if the chances of this code running on those machines is remote. >> (BTW what are other file systems are likely to encountered in >> consumer-level machines these days? I guess that's going to be on >> Windows, Linux, Android and whatever Apple's OS is called now. >> > > ALL THE WORLD IS NOT A VAX^H^H^HX86. Your bank isn't running on consumer > hardware and Windows (at least, you'd better hope they're not). I also hope they're not running C! I've no idea what banks might be using, but you'd think that whoever designs their software would implement modern byte-oriented files. Since they must be using similar backing storage: hard drives, optical, flash etc as everyone else, and those manage, when you do a directory listing on them using a proper OS, to give you the size of each file without having to read each file from the start. >> Do hard disk drives still have data encoded as fixed-length records? >> (Sectors that were 512-bytes long last time I bothered to check.) Yet >> OSes still manage to implement byte-oriented file systems. How is that >> possible? >> > > Record- or byte-orientation is a function of the *file system*, not the > hardware. And yes, there are still record-oriented file systems in use > out there. My point is that you can impose a byte-oriented file system on something which is record-oriented. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-12-11 22:08 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8761dhc01q.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #54302 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 11/12/2014 20:10, John Bode wrote: >> On Thursday, December 11, 2014 12:44:04 PM UTC-6, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: >>> On Thursday, December 11, 2014 1:18:25 PM UTC-5, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: >>>> Does this mean that a call with fseek(fh, -1, SEEK_END); is also not >>>> valid? And that anything which uses SEEK_END should not ever be used? >>>> >>>> If so, I'm stunned. Literally stunned. >>> >>> It does. I looked up the standard and it says this in black and white. >>> > >> Like Heathfield pointed out, there are some pretty oddball filesystems >> out there, and it's effectively impossible to support every one of them >> to the same degree. The world is a helluva lot bigger than x86 and >> NTFS/ext3. > > Not really. I spent a couple of decades working with MSDOS and then > Windows systems, which have byte-oriented files. Why would I need to > care about anything else? So my application is not portable, so what? Indeed, so what? You've chosen (quite reasonably) to write for a specific class of system, but the thing that Rick Hodgin is stunned by (and Richard Heathfield and John Bode are explaining) is about the C stnadrda -- that it chooses not to demand more from fseek than it does. I don't see how your design choice justifies opening with "not really" when everything that was said is accurate. I think it's just being combative -- I don't see any evidence that you disagree with what's been said. There is a debate to be had about what abstraction of "the system" a language should provide to programmers. C and Java take radically different views on this. Few here would want C to be like Java, and few Java programmers would want to abandon what Java gives them for a tighter coupling with the system, but there is a vast grey area in the middle where the answer is less clear. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 5 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web