Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #60096 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-04-15 11:46 -0700 |
| Last post | 2015-04-30 01:40 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 318 — 32 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-15 11:46 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-04-15 19:55 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 02:00 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Xcott Craver <xcottcraver@gmail.com> - 2015-04-15 13:19 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2015-04-16 13:08 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 02:25 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code pa@see.signature.invalid (Pierre Asselin) - 2015-04-16 01:01 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 02:37 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code pa@see.signature.invalid (Pierre Asselin) - 2015-05-01 02:07 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-01 04:29 -0700
Readability part I - code asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-04-16 00:13 -0700
Readability part I - code asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-04-16 00:34 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 02:46 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-04-30 05:54 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-01 04:37 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-05-01 11:48 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-05-02 23:59 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-08 20:52 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-05-08 16:15 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-09 16:14 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-03 09:11 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-16 00:19 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 02:51 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-30 20:14 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-01 05:10 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-01 06:10 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-03 09:17 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-16 11:01 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-16 04:26 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-04-16 13:19 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-17 09:20 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-04-17 08:21 -0400
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-17 15:04 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-04-17 06:18 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-04-17 12:24 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-04-17 15:58 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 04:10 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-30 13:47 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-04-30 13:48 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-30 16:35 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-04-30 10:00 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-01 06:25 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-02 15:53 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-03 10:42 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-04 09:41 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-05 07:01 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-06 09:34 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-06 04:33 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-06 13:51 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-07 11:51 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-07 21:49 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-11 13:22 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-06 15:27 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-06 09:11 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-06 21:00 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-07 00:20 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-06 10:43 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-06 13:11 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-06 19:48 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-07 11:51 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-07 12:26 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-07 16:52 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-07 20:22 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-08 02:56 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-08 10:53 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-07 18:30 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-08 09:27 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-08 11:06 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-09 09:31 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-10 08:01 +1200
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-09 13:13 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-10 08:51 +1200
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-09 16:45 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-07 13:28 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-06 19:36 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-05-06 22:13 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-07 11:56 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-07 14:16 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-07 11:43 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-07 12:02 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-07 13:36 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-07 15:09 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-07 17:13 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-07 18:07 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-05-08 11:35 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-11 11:41 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-11 13:59 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-10 10:27 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-10 10:50 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-10 19:09 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-12 04:54 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 13:19 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-12 05:26 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 08:31 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 16:40 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-20 10:28 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-10 11:39 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-12 05:33 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-07 17:59 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-11 09:20 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 09:37 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 09:40 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 09:46 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-11 09:53 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-11 13:47 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-11 20:04 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-11 12:39 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Nathan Wagner <nw@hydaspes.if.org> - 2015-05-12 07:34 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-12 10:58 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-11 21:00 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-11 21:18 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-11 23:37 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 00:07 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-11 16:52 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-12 01:19 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 01:43 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-12 11:00 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 12:33 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-12 13:25 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-17 10:01 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 08:26 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2015-05-14 19:58 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-14 20:15 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-21 07:25 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-21 08:50 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-25 02:06 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-25 09:25 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 07:35 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-10 15:53 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Martin Shobe <martin.shobe@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-10 10:20 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-10 16:30 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-10 10:49 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-07-10 11:19 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 07:47 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-13 20:20 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 02:57 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code "Chris M. Thomasson" <nospam@nospam.nospam> - 2015-07-13 12:27 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 03:21 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 17:35 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-07-15 18:46 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-15 11:35 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 08:47 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 21:24 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-07-21 08:43 -0400
Re: Readability part I - code James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-21 13:26 -0400
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-07-21 22:11 -0400
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-22 04:03 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-23 02:30 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-22 07:14 +1200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 08:24 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-21 23:39 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-22 11:51 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-23 07:35 +1200
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 06:36 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 07:25 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-10 08:44 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-10 16:53 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 08:57 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2015-05-23 06:27 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-23 16:07 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-23 19:10 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 06:25 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-24 12:24 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 22:49 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 12:49 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 22:56 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 09:07 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 17:29 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 08:52 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 19:45 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 04:27 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 17:50 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-20 08:48 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-23 03:21 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-23 21:30 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-26 11:30 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-26 16:16 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-26 23:04 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-30 15:15 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 09:12 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-12 17:28 +1200
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-12 11:09 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-12 11:43 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-05-12 05:16 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-05-12 05:34 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-05-12 22:52 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-21 03:45 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-21 12:53 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2015-05-21 11:01 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-21 20:18 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-05-21 21:47 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Kusalananda <kusalananda@example.com> - 2015-05-24 07:12 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 08:59 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 09:18 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-22 07:15 +1200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 08:53 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-11 14:09 +1200
Re: Readability part I - code Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2015-07-11 10:37 +0800
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 12:51 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-07-12 10:20 +1200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 07:23 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code jadill33@gmail.com - 2015-05-11 13:30 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-11 21:56 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-11 23:14 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 08:15 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 16:38 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-12 11:38 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 17:58 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-12 13:44 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-12 11:32 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-12 11:14 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-21 03:27 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-21 08:41 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 18:12 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-05-24 19:20 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 08:51 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-10 11:35 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-10 14:54 -0400
Re: Readability part I - code James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-07-10 15:10 -0400
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 20:51 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-10 13:22 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 20:47 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-10 17:05 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-07-11 11:04 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2015-07-11 18:06 +0800
Re: Readability part I - code Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2015-07-11 14:57 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 09:20 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 20:06 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 04:55 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-11 13:26 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 06:29 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-20 13:49 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-21 07:12 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-21 15:26 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-22 11:36 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 13:50 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-24 23:01 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 08:42 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 17:37 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-07-10 10:59 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-12 16:47 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-16 17:03 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-23 06:52 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-11 11:23 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-11 23:52 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-20 09:29 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-24 14:56 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 08:30 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-10 11:04 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-07-10 18:39 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-10 17:02 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-11 01:23 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-10 17:48 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-11 10:50 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-11 06:55 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-11 15:23 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-11 08:14 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-11 07:53 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-11 22:04 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-11 14:51 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2015-07-11 20:05 -0400
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-12 01:31 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-11 18:24 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-12 19:00 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-13 13:24 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-13 06:11 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-11 23:09 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-11 23:21 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-11 17:35 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-12 01:43 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-12 10:31 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-12 16:12 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-12 18:02 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2015-07-12 11:16 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-07-12 21:06 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 15:44 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-07-11 16:15 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-15 13:50 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 20:13 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-11 23:01 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-07-11 17:28 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-12 01:53 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-12 00:45 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-12 01:55 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-12 02:44 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-07-12 16:51 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-07-11 10:25 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 07:52 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-07-11 09:25 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-11 13:15 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-08 16:15 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-11 11:35 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> - 2015-05-11 23:56 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-12 11:53 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-05-12 20:01 +0100
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-23 07:09 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-17 10:12 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-23 07:43 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-25 14:51 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-05-26 09:17 +0000
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-07-10 07:44 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 03:19 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-04-30 14:04 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-01 08:07 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-05-02 09:18 +1200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-03 10:10 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2015-05-03 10:43 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2015-05-03 19:47 +0200
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-03 13:40 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-04 12:10 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-05 06:45 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-05 09:06 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-05 20:27 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2015-05-06 10:33 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-05-06 19:33 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-04-16 12:28 -0500
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 03:42 -0700
Re: Readability part I - code Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2015-04-30 01:40 -0700
Page 15 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 Next page →
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-11 17:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnk2u6nrqy.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #65349 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
> glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes:
> <snip>
>> ALGOL allows IF in expressions, in the same way as C's ?:.
>
> What's ALGOL? There are dozens of languages with Algol in the name, and
> two very different ones that are widely know standards, but I don't know
> any called simply ALGOL.
I think the name ALGOL usually refers to ALGOL 60. ALGOL 68 was derived
from ALGOL 60, but it's a quite different language.
--
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 | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-12 01:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87y4imqjqp.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #65376 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes: > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: >> glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes: >> <snip> >>> ALGOL allows IF in expressions, in the same way as C's ?:. >> >> What's ALGOL? There are dozens of languages with Algol in the name, and >> two very different ones that are widely know standards, but I don't know >> any called simply ALGOL. > > I think the name ALGOL usually refers to ALGOL 60. ALGOL 68 was derived > from ALGOL 60, but it's a quite different language. Ah, OK. I am not used to seeing it capitalised. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-12 00:45 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mnsdbb$en6$2@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #65349 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: (snip, I wrote) >> ALGOL allows IF in expressions, in the same way as C's ?:. > What's ALGOL? There are dozens of languages with Algol in the name, and > two very different ones that are widely know standards, but I don't know > any called simply ALGOL. I remember it from ALGOL-10 on the PDP-10 some years ago. I think that is based on ALGOL 60, but didn't know that at the time. OK, how about the language they talk about it comp.lang.algol! -- glen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-12 01:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87si8uqjms.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #65383 |
glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> writes: > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: > > (snip, I wrote) >>> ALGOL allows IF in expressions, in the same way as C's ?:. > >> What's ALGOL? There are dozens of languages with Algol in the name, and >> two very different ones that are widely know standards, but I don't know >> any called simply ALGOL. > > I remember it from ALGOL-10 on the PDP-10 some years ago. > > I think that is based on ALGOL 60, but didn't know that at the time. > > OK, how about the language they talk about it comp.lang.algol! I don't know what is topical there. A remember Algol (not ALGOL) and Algol 60 and Algol 68 and Algol W and S algol and... Without qualification I was confused. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-12 02:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <mnska8$qnv$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #65385 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: (snip) >> I remember it from ALGOL-10 on the PDP-10 some years ago. >> I think that is based on ALGOL 60, but didn't know that at the time. >> OK, how about the language they talk about it comp.lang.algol! > I don't know what is topical there. A remember Algol (not ALGOL) and > Algol 60 and Algol 68 and Algol W and S algol and... Without > qualification I was confused. When I first knew about ALGOL, lower case hadn't been invented yet. Well, more specifically, punched on an 026 keypunch, which doesn't have many characters needed for ALGOL, but especially not lower case letters. That was on a B5500, and I was nine years old. There were charts on the wall with the multipunch combinations needed to write programs. I think the FORTRAN character set was carefully limited to 026 keypunch characters. As far as I know, IBM Fortran compilers still don't know what to do with lower case letters. -- glen
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-12 16:51 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <64o5qad87du0j7inbaqj1rhdjapb58j0f7@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #65390 |
On Sun, 12 Jul 2015 02:44:24 +0000 (UTC), glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote: >Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: > >(snip) >>> I remember it from ALGOL-10 on the PDP-10 some years ago. > >>> I think that is based on ALGOL 60, but didn't know that at the time. > >>> OK, how about the language they talk about it comp.lang.algol! > >> I don't know what is topical there. A remember Algol (not ALGOL) and >> Algol 60 and Algol 68 and Algol W and S algol and... Without >> qualification I was confused. > >When I first knew about ALGOL, lower case hadn't been invented yet. > >Well, more specifically, punched on an 026 keypunch, which doesn't >have many characters needed for ALGOL, but especially not lower >case letters. That was on a B5500, and I was nine years old. > >There were charts on the wall with the multipunch combinations >needed to write programs. I think the FORTRAN character set was >carefully limited to 026 keypunch characters. As far as I know, >IBM Fortran compilers still don't know what to do with lower case >letters. IBM's XL Fortran compilers (AIX and Linux on POWER) certainly don't mind lowercase letters, although they're normally case-insensitive (there's a compiler option to change that). OTOH, I don't know if IBM is actually still offering a Fortran compiler for Z.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-11 10:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87mvz3ujv4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #65201 |
ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
>>The way to teach if is
>>if(a < b)
>>{
>> printf("%d is less that %d\n" a, b);
>>}
>>else
>>{
>> printf("%d is not less than %d\n", a, b);
>>}
>
> Before I teach »if«, I already have taught »?:«.
> So, I already have shown statements like:
>
> printf( "%d is %sless than %d\n", a, a < b ? "" : "not ", b );
<snip>
> Ok, »%sless« /is/ somewhat less readable than »not less«,
You might consider using
printf( "%d is %s" "less than %d\n", a, a < b ? "" : "not ", b );
and I'm sure you've considered
printf( "%d is %s than %d\n", a, a < b ? "less" : "not less", b );
<snip>
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-11 07:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfntwtazqz1.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #65157 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes: > Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> writes: >> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: > > [...] > >>> My mental model is "while Expression Statement", with Expression being >>> restricted to the subset of expressions enclosed in parentheses. >>> >>> Ditto for if statements. >> >> I think most C developers have that model. I don't do that, >> because I want my mental model to match the actual syntax rules. > > I'd be a bit surprised if most C developers have that model, [snip] Let me amend my previous statement. I think most C developers have a mental model not too different from that. Of course I mean to include those developers who don't really have a conscious model at all, but have learned to write C code without really thinking about syntax rules.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-11 09:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mnr8td$rur$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #65118 |
On 10-Jul-15 10:30, Tim Rentsch wrote: > Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: >> On 20-May-15 11:29, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>> I don't know that this will be helpful but let me take a stab at >>> defining (well, giving analogies) for the different categories I >>> mentioned. >>> >>> (a) perceptual - like every other word is written in bold face >> >> I'm not sure I'd even notice that. >> >>> (b) cognitive - like verbs are in French rather than English >> >> I'm not sure I'd notice that either; I deal with mixed Spanish >> and English (aka Spanglish) all the time in the real world, and I >> know enough French that it'd probably be the same, though I can't >> say I've ever seen or heard it before in practice. (I speak all >> three.) >> >>> (c) familiar - like every third word is written right-to-left >> >> That'd probably be jarring, since I don't know any RTL languages. >> >> OTOH, I can read both AT&T (op src, dst) and Intel (op dst, src) >> style x86 assembly without much difficulty, so maybe not. >> >>> (d) indirect - like triple spacing - no direct effect, but having >>> to turn pages three times as often slows you down >> >> That'd be annoying, but I don't think it'd be jarring. >> >>> (e) other - like tabs vs spaces - makes no difference to >>> reading, but does make a difference when editing >> >> As you say, that wouldn't affect reading. > > I appreciate the responses, but what I was hoping for was a more > substantial response to my upthread question after the categories > were explained. Oh well, maybe another time. I'm sorry; I know you're trying to understand, but even with the effort you've put into examples, I'm just not sure of the distinctions you're trying to make. And, to an extent, I don't really _know_ why my brain works the way it does. I've probably put more thought into this issue responding to you than I have on my own in 30+ years of coding, so I don't have ready-made answers or even the language to express them. >>> To try to ask the question in your frame, what is the "source" of >>> the jar force? (Based on what you say elsewhere my guess is that >>> it would be (c), but I don't want to assume that.) >> >> That's my best guess, but I'm not sure I know for sure. I'm sorry >> I can't be more helpful here. > > Let me ask you (very gently) to try to notice when you read code > later and see if something jumps out at you. I'll try to keep this in mind. >> My mental model is "while Expression Statement", with Expression >> being restricted to the subset of expressions enclosed in >> parentheses. >> >> Ditto for if statements. > > I think most C developers have that model. I don't do that, because > I want my mental model to match the actual syntax rules. I do know that my mental model is technically incorrect; it's just that, aside from this discussion, it has never mattered, so I never put any mental effort into trying to fix it--and after 20+ years of thinking of it one way, I doubt it's something I can change now anyway. Still, at least now you can understand _why_ I prefer the white space a certain way for these statements. I don't know how many other people share my broken mental model, but if we were to try to measure that by the fraction of code that matches my white space preferences, I'd say it's quite common, perhaps dominant. >> I'm not sure how I square this with for's syntax, since the >> parentheses obviously don't enclose a normal expression but rather >> three separate expressions separated by semicolons. Maybe the fact >> those three expressions are (in a way) executed in sequence, like >> any other set of expressions separated by semicolons, mitigates >> that oddity? > > It sounds like you put a higher value on lexical similarity than > semantic fidelity. It's hard for me to imagine thinking of the the > clauses in a for() in the way that you describe. Well, for statements were one of the last and most difficult parts of C for me to internalize; even today, except for the (very common) single iterator pattern, I still have to parse them in the slow path. That might indicate my mental model is still BASIC's FOR/TO/STEP pattern, which I had learned 10+ years earlier. >> When used as a list separator, I read a comma as "and": >> >> foo(a, b) -> foo of a and b > > In code, I read list-separator commas either as a short pause or as > "comma". Reading prose, I think I read list-separator commas usually > as a short pause, but may voice them as "comma" when it is important > to be unambiguous. Interesting. That's how I'd voice them, and that's actually what happens in my slow-path (conscious) parsing, but that's _not_ what happens in my fast-path (subconscious) parsing. Perhaps this helps with your earlier question: this is one of several differences between my fast- and slow-path parsing, which is why the former objects to some things that the latter doesn't. In particular, I think the fast path is optimized for what I'm _used to_ seeing, so any deviation is "jarring" because it forces me into the slow path. >> Without the space after the comma, though, the comma becomes only >> a visual separator: >> >> foo(a,b) -> foo of ab > > Hmmm. I still want to read them as a short pause, which may account > for my practice of always using spaces in such cases. At least in the fast path, my brain parses this as one number: 100,200 but this as two numbers: 100, 200 regardless of the context. The former does _not_ get a mental pause or "and" inserted due to the lack of a following space. Note that letters rather than numbers does _not_ change this; it's deep down in the bowels of the parser, below where the tokens themselves are understood. FWIW, my parser goes absolutely nuts when I encounter other number separator formats, e.g. 100.000,00. Just _writing_ that was quite difficult, akin to deliberately mispelling a word. >>> Two other factors do. First, for 'if(a)' or 'if (a)', I feel a >>> subliminal urge -- probably learned from many years of reading >>> prose -- to *skip over* the stuff inside the parentheses. >> >> Ah, that may be another major difference. When I'm reading prose, >> a parenthetical clause comes out in a different (usually lower) >> voice, like an aside in a stage play, and my brain saves the state >> of the main voice until it returns. I don't "skip over" them, >> since if it weren't worth reading, presumably it wouldn't be there >> in the first place. > > I should clarify my previous statement. I don't actually skip over > the parenthesized stuff, just, hmm, something, give it less weight > maybe. So my process is similar to yours, except I might add that > subliminally I feel a "this is not really important to pay attention > to" overtone, which you might not. That overtone might be there as well, hence the lower voice. >> FWIW, I also tend to get confused in live conversations between >> more than three people, which is an interesting (and frustrating) >> social impairment. > > I find it hard to process conversation when there is more than one > person speaking at once, however many people there are. But I think > that's an auditory effect, not a cognitive one. No, I'm referring to people talking _serially_. In a group of three, I can participate. In a group of four, I end up silent because my brain needs "my" slot to keep track of someone else. In a group of five or more, e.g. panel discussions or social events, I get confused because my brain loses track of who each person is and what they previously said. >> The same mechanism may be at play when reading code; past two >> levels of nested parentheses, I have to switch to conscious >> parsing, which is very slow, rather than subconscious parsing, >> which is very fast. > > I think for me it depends a lot on the kind of expressions involved. > If the different levels "stratify" nicely then then handling even > four or five levels is not so bad; for the general case though three > levels (which corresponds to two levels of parentheses) is normally > the limit. Also I would say the depth of nesting is what matters, > not affected so much by whether parentheses are needed to produce > the nesting. It might be levels of nesting rather than parentheses per se, but my preferred use of the latter happens to match the former in most cases, so it's hard to tell. S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-07-11 13:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfn7fq6wiwb.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #65269 |
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: > On 10-Jul-15 10:30, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes: >>> On 20-May-15 11:29, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>>> I don't know that this will be helpful but let me take a stab at >>>> defining (well, giving analogies) for the different categories I >>>> mentioned. >>>> >>>> (a) perceptual - like every other word is written in bold face >>> >>> I'm not sure I'd even notice that. >>> >>>> (b) cognitive - like verbs are in French rather than English >>> >>> I'm not sure I'd notice that either; I deal with mixed Spanish >>> and English (aka Spanglish) all the time in the real world, and I >>> know enough French that it'd probably be the same, though I can't >>> say I've ever seen or heard it before in practice. (I speak all >>> three.) >>> >>>> (c) familiar - like every third word is written right-to-left >>> >>> That'd probably be jarring, since I don't know any RTL languages. >>> >>> OTOH, I can read both AT&T (op src, dst) and Intel (op dst, src) >>> style x86 assembly without much difficulty, so maybe not. >>> >>>> (d) indirect - like triple spacing - no direct effect, but having >>>> to turn pages three times as often slows you down >>> >>> That'd be annoying, but I don't think it'd be jarring. >>> >>>> (e) other - like tabs vs spaces - makes no difference to >>>> reading, but does make a difference when editing >>> >>> As you say, that wouldn't affect reading. >> >> I appreciate the responses, but what I was hoping for was a more >> substantial response to my upthread question after the categories >> were explained. Oh well, maybe another time. > > I'm sorry; I know you're trying to understand, but even with the effort > you've put into examples, I'm just not sure of the distinctions you're > trying to make. And, to an extent, I don't really _know_ why my brain > works the way it does. I've probably put more thought into this issue > responding to you than I have on my own in 30+ years of coding, so I > don't have ready-made answers or even the language to express them. No worries! I appreciate the time and effort you have already put in (and meant to convey that above, apparently that may not have come across). >>>> To try to ask the question in your frame, what is the "source" of >>>> the jar force? (Based on what you say elsewhere my guess is that >>>> it would be (c), but I don't want to assume that.) >>> >>> That's my best guess, but I'm not sure I know for sure. I'm sorry >>> I can't be more helpful here. >> >> Let me ask you (very gently) to try to notice when you read code >> later and see if something jumps out at you. > > I'll try to keep this in mind. > >>> My mental model is "while Expression Statement", with Expression >>> being restricted to the subset of expressions enclosed in >>> parentheses. >>> >>> Ditto for if statements. >> >> I think most C developers have that model. I don't do that, because >> I want my mental model to match the actual syntax rules. > > I do know that my mental model is technically incorrect; it's just that, > aside from this discussion, it has never mattered, so I never put any > mental effort into trying to fix it--and after 20+ years of thinking of > it one way, I doubt it's something I can change now anyway. > > Still, at least now you can understand _why_ I prefer the white space a > certain way for these statements. Yes, and that's the kind of understanding I'm looking for. > I don't know how many other people share my broken mental model, but if > we were to try to measure that by the fraction of code that matches my > white space preferences, I'd say it's quite common, perhaps dominant. I believe your preference here is the most common one, but I think that's most of a historical accident than anything else. People tend to use what they learn first. >>> I'm not sure how I square this with for's syntax, since the >>> parentheses obviously don't enclose a normal expression but rather >>> three separate expressions separated by semicolons. Maybe the fact >>> those three expressions are (in a way) executed in sequence, like >>> any other set of expressions separated by semicolons, mitigates >>> that oddity? >> >> It sounds like you put a higher value on lexical similarity than >> semantic fidelity. It's hard for me to imagine thinking of the the >> clauses in a for() in the way that you describe. > > Well, for statements were one of the last and most difficult parts of C > for me to internalize; even today, except for the (very common) single > iterator pattern, I still have to parse them in the slow path. That > might indicate my mental model is still BASIC's FOR/TO/STEP pattern, > which I had learned 10+ years earlier. Interesting. I don't remember any difficulty picking up C's for() construct, if anything it seems rather natural to me, but maybe that happened after the fact using it all this time. In my case my first exposure was Fortran DO loops, which was slightly less than 10 years before I leared C IIRC. >>> When used as a list separator, I read a comma as "and": >>> >>> foo(a, b) -> foo of a and b >> >> In code, I read list-separator commas either as a short pause or as >> "comma". Reading prose, I think I read list-separator commas usually >> as a short pause, but may voice them as "comma" when it is important >> to be unambiguous. > > Interesting. That's how I'd voice them, and that's actually what > happens in my slow-path (conscious) parsing, but that's _not_ what > happens in my fast-path (subconscious) parsing. > > Perhaps this helps with your earlier question: this is one of several > differences between my fast- and slow-path parsing, which is why the > former objects to some things that the latter doesn't. In particular, I > think the fast path is optimized for what I'm _used to_ seeing, so any > deviation is "jarring" because it forces me into the slow path. That makes sense. Interesting explanation. >>> Without the space after the comma, though, the comma becomes only >>> a visual separator: >>> >>> foo(a,b) -> foo of ab >> >> Hmmm. I still want to read them as a short pause, which may account >> for my practice of always using spaces in such cases. > > At least in the fast path, my brain parses this as one number: > > 100,200 > > but this as two numbers: > > 100, 200 > > regardless of the context. The former does _not_ get a mental pause or > "and" inserted due to the lack of a following space. Note that letters > rather than numbers does _not_ change this; it's deep down in the bowels > of the parser, below where the tokens themselves are understood. Cool observation! Reading this it occurs to me that in my brain I may have developed two different "reading centers", one for prose and one for code. > FWIW, my parser goes absolutely nuts when I encounter other number > separator formats, e.g. 100.000,00. Just _writing_ that was quite > difficult, akin to deliberately mispelling a word. Very interesting. I don't know offhand of any experience of my own that corresponds to this. >>>> Two other factors do. First, for 'if(a)' or 'if (a)', I feel a >>>> subliminal urge -- probably learned from many years of reading >>>> prose -- to *skip over* the stuff inside the parentheses. >>> >>> Ah, that may be another major difference. When I'm reading prose, >>> a parenthetical clause comes out in a different (usually lower) >>> voice, like an aside in a stage play, and my brain saves the state >>> of the main voice until it returns. I don't "skip over" them, >>> since if it weren't worth reading, presumably it wouldn't be there >>> in the first place. >> >> I should clarify my previous statement. I don't actually skip over >> the parenthesized stuff, just, hmm, something, give it less weight >> maybe. So my process is similar to yours, except I might add that >> subliminally I feel a "this is not really important to pay attention >> to" overtone, which you might not. > > That overtone might be there as well, hence the lower voice. Okay, good to know. >>> FWIW, I also tend to get confused in live conversations between >>> more than three people, which is an interesting (and frustrating) >>> social impairment. >> >> I find it hard to process conversation when there is more than one >> person speaking at once, however many people there are. But I think >> that's an auditory effect, not a cognitive one. > > No, I'm referring to people talking _serially_. In a group of three, I > can participate. In a group of four, I end up silent because my brain > needs "my" slot to keep track of someone else. In a group of five or > more, e.g. panel discussions or social events, I get confused because my > brain loses track of who each person is and what they previously said. Ahh. I can relate to that, even (sometimes) talking to just one other person. If someone talks continuously, at some point I feel like I need them to stop talking, so I can catch up. The auditory memory goes into a buffer, but that buffer has finite size, and depending on the person and how they're talking I can't empty the buffer as fast as it fills up. I think is similar or related to what you're describing (though it may be a different underlying mechanism). >>> The same mechanism may be at play when reading code; past two >>> levels of nested parentheses, I have to switch to conscious >>> parsing, which is very slow, rather than subconscious parsing, >>> which is very fast. >> >> I think for me it depends a lot on the kind of expressions involved. >> If the different levels "stratify" nicely then then handling even >> four or five levels is not so bad; for the general case though three >> levels (which corresponds to two levels of parentheses) is normally >> the limit. Also I would say the depth of nesting is what matters, >> not affected so much by whether parentheses are needed to produce >> the nesting. > > It might be levels of nesting rather than parentheses per se, but my > preferred use of the latter happens to match the former in most cases, > so it's hard to tell. Let me suggest an experiment (knowing all the while that it is unlikely to be acted upon, but no matter!). For a while, when you write expressions, every place you would write a redundant parenthesis, put in a space instead. The lines will take the same number of characters; they will have the same meaning; and the spaces should show the grouping without needing much conscious thought. If you do try this experiment I'd be interested to hear the results. In any case, thank you again for your comments and time and effort in my little discussion topic. It has been quite helpful.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-08 16:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <554ce0f1.16724859@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #61723 |
Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes: > > > Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> writes: > > [...] > >> To summarize, I favor 'if( a == b )' over 'if (a==b)' because the > >> first form takes less effort both physically and mentally, as > >> detailed above. Make sense? > > > > Yes. And I favor 'if (a == b)' over 'if( a == b )' for the same > > reason. > > That's fine but you don't say what factors influence that. Can > you say anything about what those are? Might it be that you > find the first form easier just because that's what you are > used to? Apart from the fact that it's a severe typographical sin to put spaces just inside parentheses, or indeed brackets of any kind? Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-11 11:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnbnhrdks9.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #61769 |
raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes: > Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > >> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes: >> >>> Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> writes: >>> [...] >>>> To summarize, I favor 'if( a == b )' over 'if (a==b)' because the >>>> first form takes less effort both physically and mentally, as >>>> detailed above. Make sense? >>> >>> Yes. And I favor 'if (a == b)' over 'if( a == b )' for the same >>> reason. >> >> That's fine but you don't say what factors influence that. Can >> you say anything about what those are? Might it be that you >> find the first form easier just because that's what you are >> used to? > > Apart from the fact that it's a severe typographical sin to put > spaces just inside parentheses, or indeed brackets of any kind? That may be true when typesetting prose, but clearly different rules apply for code. The most obvious counter-example is open and close braces, which are almost never adjacent to their contents. The role played by brackets in natural language and their role in programming languages are more dissimilar than they are similar; there is no reason to assume that what makes sense in the former will also make sense in the latter.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-11 23:56 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <mis13r$pi0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #61852 |
On 11-May-15 13:35, Tim Rentsch wrote: > raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes: >> Apart from the fact that it's a severe typographical sin to put >> spaces just inside parentheses, or indeed brackets of any kind? > > That may be true when typesetting prose, but clearly different rules > apply for code. The most obvious counter-example is open and close > braces, which are almost never adjacent to their contents. The role > played by brackets in natural language and their role in programming > languages are more dissimilar than they are similar; there is no > reason to assume that what makes sense in the former will also make > sense in the latter. It holds for parenthesis and (square) brackets, but I've never seen (curly) braces used in prose; perhaps that's why we can use different rules without it seeming odd? Heck, perhaps that's why K&R chose the particular punctuation they did for the various purposes? S -- Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-12 11:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnmw19bpaa.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #61881 |
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org> writes:
> On 11-May-15 13:35, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>> raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes:
>>> Apart from the fact that it's a severe typographical sin to put
>>> spaces just inside parentheses, or indeed brackets of any kind?
>>
>> That may be true when typesetting prose, but clearly different rules
>> apply for code. The most obvious counter-example is open and close
>> braces, which are almost never adjacent to their contents. The role
>> played by brackets in natural language and their role in programming
>> languages are more dissimilar than they are similar; there is no
>> reason to assume that what makes sense in the former will also make
>> sense in the latter.
>
> It holds for parenthesis and (square) brackets, but I've never seen
> (curly) braces used in prose; perhaps that's why we can use different
> rules without it seeming odd? Heck, perhaps that's why K&R chose the
> particular punctuation they did for the various purposes?
Although it is not nearly as common, prose does sometimes use
braces, also called {curly, squiggly, flower} brackets, depending
on the speaker's background or national origin.
However, my main point is that how punctuation is used -- and
more generally, how material is read -- in programming languages
has little to do with how it's used/read in natural languages.
Consider ampersand, question mark, colon, semicolon, period,
single quote, double quote, and exclamation point (and not to
mention dash or solidus) - are these used the same way? Of
course not: natural language associates one kind of semantics
with these symbols; the semantics in programming language
usage is distinctly different. (And now I'm trying to come
up with a "wow!" finish for this little ditty, but the best
I can think of is to refer interested parties to the law
offices of Dewey, Cheatham & Howe.)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-12 20:01 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mitikl$kmp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #61923 |
On 12/05/15 19:53, Tim Rentsch wrote: <snip> > (And now I'm trying to come > up with a "wow!" finish for this little ditty, but the best > I can think of is to refer interested parties to the law > offices of Dewey, Cheatham & Howe.) Nice - I was *just* about to do a Web search for them... and then I saw it. Anyway, it makes a change from the celebrated case of Arkell vs Pressdram. If you haven't come across Arkell vs Pressdram before, may I suggest that you finish your cup of coffee /before/ searching? I already owe far too many people new keyboards. -- 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 | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-23 07:09 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnbnhb8jxj.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #61924 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > On 12/05/15 19:53, Tim Rentsch wrote: > > <snip> > >> (And now I'm trying to come >> up with a "wow!" finish for this little ditty, but the best >> I can think of is to refer interested parties to the law >> offices of Dewey, Cheatham & Howe.) > > Nice - I was *just* about to do a Web search for them... and then I > saw it. It wasn't original, but thank you. It was all I could think of to put in a legitimate ampersand in regular prose. By the way, did you notice that I snuck in another (ie, not mentioned) C punctuator into the prose paragraph? > Anyway, it makes a change from the celebrated case of Arkell > vs Pressdram. > > If you haven't come across Arkell vs Pressdram before, may I > suggest that you finish your cup of coffee /before/ searching? > I already owe far too many people new keyboards. I hadn't heard of Arkell v. Pressdram, but you'll be glad to hear you don't owe me a new keyboard.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-17 10:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <55586744.3798765@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #61852 |
Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes: > > > Apart from the fact that it's a severe typographical sin to put > > spaces just inside parentheses, or indeed brackets of any kind? > > That may be true when typesetting prose, but clearly different > rules apply for code. The most obvious counter-example is open > and close braces, which are almost never adjacent to their > contents. The role played by brackets in natural language and > their role in programming languages are more dissimilar than > they are similar; there is no reason to assume that what > makes sense in the former will also make sense in the latter. That's partly true, in that it is no _overriding_ reason to make everything in code look like natural language[1], and the case of braces proves that. However, it _is_ still a thing to keep in mind that there are good reasons why, over the centuries, almost all typography has gravitated towards a lack of spaces inside parens and other brackets. Richard [1] And I, for one, find "literate programming" often hard to read
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-23 07:43 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfn7frz8idh.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #62143 |
raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes: > Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote: > >> raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) writes: >> >>> Apart from the fact that it's a severe typographical sin to put >>> spaces just inside parentheses, or indeed brackets of any kind? >> >> That may be true when typesetting prose, but clearly different >> rules apply for code. The most obvious counter-example is open >> and close braces, which are almost never adjacent to their >> contents. The role played by brackets in natural language and >> their role in programming languages are more dissimilar than >> they are similar; there is no reason to assume that what >> makes sense in the former will also make sense in the latter. > > That's partly true, in that it is no _overriding_ reason to make > everything in code look like natural language[1], and the case of > braces proves that. However, it _is_ still a thing to keep in > mind that there are good reasons why, over the centuries, almost > all typography has gravitated towards a lack of spaces inside > parens and other brackets. That may be true, but the contexts (mostly prose and mathematics) for those choices are very different from the context of program source code. Also it's worth remembering that over that time the notation itself has changed to make its appearance more suitable. Programming languages don't have that luxury (besides not having had nearly as much time), because code we write today has to use the same syntax we used ten or twenty or thirty years ago. (And just between you, me and the lamppost, I don't think mathematical notation is a good example of a model of clarity, but never mind that now.) I continue to believe that the roles played by the various sorts of brackets is decidedly different in the different contexts, and even between different uses in the same context, eg, a parenthesized sub-expression compared to the parentheses in a for() statement. These different kinds of usage should not be subject to the same rules, in part precisely because they are different. > [1] And I, for one, find "literate programming" often hard to > read Personally I don't think literate programming is a good match for general program development. But that's a huge topic in and of itself so let me leave it there for now.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-25 14:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e69b476d-4faf-4de6-8812-d0ed72ced98e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #62493 |
On Saturday, May 23, 2015 at 3:43:16 PM UTC+1, Tim Rentsch wrote: > (And just between you, me and the lamppost, I don't think mathematical > notation is a good example of a model of clarity, but never mind > that now.) > Notation is mathematics. Every other natural subject can exist independently of the notation used to express its ideas, but not mathematics.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-05-26 09:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <55643a2f.1359734@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #62620 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: > On Saturday, May 23, 2015 at 3:43:16 PM UTC+1, Tim Rentsch wrote: > > (And just between you, me and the lamppost, I don't think mathematical > > notation is a good example of a model of clarity, but never mind > > that now.) > > > Notation is mathematics. Every other natural subject can exist > independently of the notation used to express its ideas, but not > mathematics. Malcolm, meet Plato. Plato, meet Malcolm. Have a nice chat. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 15 of 16 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web