Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #97546 > unrolled thread
| Started by | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-26 12:49 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-12-01 12:33 +0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 567 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
absence of max fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 12:49 -0800
absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 15:34 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 00:21 +0000
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 04:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-11-27 13:54 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 13:54 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-27 07:33 -0800
Re: absence of max Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-27 14:06 +0100
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-27 17:47 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 07:13 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-28 15:35 +0000
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 07:48 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 07:53 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 00:14 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 00:36 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 02:03 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-28 23:23 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-28 21:05 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-28 16:53 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 08:07 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 10:37 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 08:26 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 10:42 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 08:16 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 09:31 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 10:38 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 10:59 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 12:09 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 12:46 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 13:05 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 13:50 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 10:52 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 05:44 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 15:12 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 06:54 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-30 10:37 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 03:07 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-30 13:28 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 05:12 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-28 18:57 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 11:33 -0800
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-28 20:09 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 10:55 +0100
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 10:06 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 11:18 +0100
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 10:28 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 10:49 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 10:51 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 11:40 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 12:17 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 15:18 +0000
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 18:30 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 18:49 +0000
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-29 14:09 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-29 10:56 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-29 11:29 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 20:27 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 20:31 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-30 10:45 +0100
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-29 12:54 -0800
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-29 16:21 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 21:47 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 21:30 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-29 14:12 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 22:27 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 22:33 +0000
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-29 14:52 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-29 15:43 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 23:51 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 00:51 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-30 02:08 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-29 18:10 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 12:29 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-28 21:30 +0000
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 13:47 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 14:59 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 15:13 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 00:12 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 01:11 +0000
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 18:01 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 02:19 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-29 13:26 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 17:09 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 00:01 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 00:29 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 17:02 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 01:21 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 17:53 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-28 23:11 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 02:12 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 11:17 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-29 09:46 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 15:45 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-29 17:04 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-29 07:21 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 15:50 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-30 00:19 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 00:43 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-30 01:51 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-29 22:26 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 11:25 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 09:07 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 14:22 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-30 09:03 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 23:38 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-30 15:49 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 00:10 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-30 17:22 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 01:40 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-30 18:03 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 17:25 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 23:29 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 23:55 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-01 10:05 +0100
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-01 11:20 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 11:41 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-01 13:48 +0100
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 10:43 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-01 21:23 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 14:41 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-02 09:39 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 11:35 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-01 14:51 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 15:05 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 10:49 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 20:48 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-01 16:51 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-01 01:18 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 23:57 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-01 11:38 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-01 13:28 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-02 00:06 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-01 20:02 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-02 02:22 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-01 21:42 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 01:56 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 21:25 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 02:33 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-03 15:20 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-03 15:40 -0500
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-02 21:57 +1300
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 10:46 -0500
Re: absence of max asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-11-30 06:36 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 16:41 +0000
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-30 20:50 +1300
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 11:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-30 12:00 +0000
Re: absence of max James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-30 11:32 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-30 19:25 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 20:45 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-30 12:52 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-30 14:17 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-01 10:14 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 07:37 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-01 17:05 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 10:06 -0800
Re: absence of max James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-01 13:53 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 12:22 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-01 19:02 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-02 10:05 +0100
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-02 11:01 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-02 17:28 +0100
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-01 21:13 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 10:53 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 11:51 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 12:52 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 14:28 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 14:48 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 15:00 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-01 19:28 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-02 10:30 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 07:24 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 10:50 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 09:39 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-02 10:17 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-02 11:46 -0800
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-02 15:02 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 11:58 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-02 13:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 15:31 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 13:34 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 19:32 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-03 01:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 20:48 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 02:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 21:27 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 02:50 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 22:45 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-03 11:07 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-03 15:46 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-03 13:46 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 23:29 +0000
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-03 18:42 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 23:59 +0000
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 08:31 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-10 13:51 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-10 22:08 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-03 20:19 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-04 01:28 +0000
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 14:34 +1300
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-05 00:02 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-05 10:34 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 08:38 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-05 15:52 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 16:03 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-03 19:19 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-04 11:26 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 11:33 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-03 15:48 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-04 00:59 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-03 20:23 -0500
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-03 10:32 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-03 17:15 +0100
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-03 08:33 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-03 11:08 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 21:31 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-04 08:40 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-04 19:39 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-05 07:15 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 16:09 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-05 13:38 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-05 14:12 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 22:21 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-05 22:05 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 10:46 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-06 09:45 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 13:25 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-06 10:33 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 16:25 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-06 15:10 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 20:48 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-07 14:43 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 09:26 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-08 11:32 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 21:56 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-08 20:28 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:10 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 21:17 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:01 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 20:00 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 22:51 -0500
Re: absence of max cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2016-12-10 04:44 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-05 22:49 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-05 15:24 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 22:25 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 22:24 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-05 22:47 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 10:51 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-06 10:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 16:26 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-07 02:09 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 09:30 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 01:44 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 09:29 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 21:54 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:05 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 11:39 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:16 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 16:45 +0100
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-09 21:07 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 22:58 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-10 17:49 +0100
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-09 16:46 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 22:56 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-10 14:04 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-10 08:45 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-10 14:54 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 15:40 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-11 23:13 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 17:59 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 18:13 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:02 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-16 22:47 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 22:38 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 14:43 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-17 13:52 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 10:00 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 09:58 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 16:39 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 22:48 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-18 16:51 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 11:54 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-19 21:24 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 17:38 -0500
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-19 15:11 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 19:12 -0500
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-19 17:23 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 21:41 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-17 09:23 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 22:49 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-18 08:26 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 11:56 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-19 19:19 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 17:40 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-10 18:03 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 15:44 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-10 01:19 -0600
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 21:52 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:02 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-10 12:59 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 15:52 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 03:18 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 22:29 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 04:12 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:44 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-06 06:10 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 10:58 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-06 10:21 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-06 10:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 16:28 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-07 02:48 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 09:34 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 06:58 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 15:15 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 12:30 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 16:25 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 13:46 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-07 13:53 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 14:03 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-07 14:50 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 07:46 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-10 13:44 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-14 22:12 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 17:00 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 14:08 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 17:28 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 17:29 -0500
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-07 14:49 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 16:24 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-07 17:04 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 07:29 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-10 13:37 -0800
Re: absence of max me <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 14:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 02:19 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 02:07 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 09:36 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-08 16:22 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 10:52 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-08 08:11 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:08 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-08 12:50 -0800
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-09 10:14 +1300
Re: absence of max Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-12-08 22:17 +0100
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-09 10:21 +1300
Re: absence of max Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-12-08 22:24 +0100
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 13:06 +0100
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-09 21:15 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:05 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-10 03:22 -0600
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-10 15:12 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 15:57 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-12 00:13 -0600
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:48 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-10 14:11 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 15:59 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-11 23:18 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 17:59 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 18:18 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:04 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-16 22:48 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 22:39 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 14:45 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 10:01 -0500
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-17 11:27 -0800
People who confuse and jumble up the difference between past, present, and future (Was: absence of max) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-12-17 20:07 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:17 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:17 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:15 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 08:40 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 13:19 +0100
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 12:29 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 14:34 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:24 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 16:58 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:09 -0500
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-11 20:56 +1300
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-09 16:52 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 13:35 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 13:42 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 13:54 +0000
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 07:54 -0800
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-11 16:14 +0000
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 18:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-14 21:08 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:25 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:18 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 15:55 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:11 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:21 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-10 01:48 -0600
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 13:02 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:39 -0500
Re: absence of max cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2016-12-10 04:37 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-10 00:13 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 22:22 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:19 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-07 19:40 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 09:38 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-08 07:52 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 19:37 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-08 14:46 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-08 15:46 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-13 13:04 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-13 13:38 -0800
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-13 14:07 -0800
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-13 22:51 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-14 08:17 -0800
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-14 11:49 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-14 16:53 -0800
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-15 05:14 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-15 15:02 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-15 08:54 -0800
Re: absence of max raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-12-15 19:55 +0000
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-15 13:48 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-15 14:20 -0800
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-15 15:32 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-15 23:44 +0100
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-16 07:00 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-16 08:21 +0000
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-16 21:10 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-16 13:24 -0800
Re: absence of max "D. Aaron Sawyer" <aaron@110.net> - 2016-12-16 18:51 -0400
Re: absence of max raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-12-20 09:03 +0000
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-20 02:21 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-14 19:05 +0100
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-14 22:46 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-08 15:58 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 00:18 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-09 07:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-09 11:29 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 09:07 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-10 14:20 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 21:31 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:15 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-10 12:15 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 16:04 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:27 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 22:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-09 15:45 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:21 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:19 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-10 12:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 16:04 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 03:15 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 22:31 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 04:14 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:50 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 23:18 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:05 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-17 02:58 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 22:40 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 18:20 +0100
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 17:29 +0000
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 18:53 +0100
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 17:58 +0000
Re: absence of max cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2016-12-12 19:11 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-13 10:31 +0100
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-12 15:38 -0800
Re: absence of max raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-12-15 12:08 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:06 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-16 22:49 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 22:44 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 14:47 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 10:04 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 16:45 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 22:51 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-17 13:52 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 22:51 -0500
Re: absence of max Parity Error <kgf@quiscurat.net> - 2016-12-18 09:17 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:23 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-08 12:23 -0800
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 20:45 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:32 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 08:42 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:40 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 16:10 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:33 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-11 15:02 +0000
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-11 13:01 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 16:11 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-11 23:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 18:59 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 00:09 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 20:56 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 08:04 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:50 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-11 16:18 -0800
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-11 19:38 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 21:04 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 03:35 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:52 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 23:22 +0000
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-12 17:35 +1300
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:54 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 08:17 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 13:01 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 13:16 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 10:05 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 15:21 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:09 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-12 13:12 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 03:01 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 22:03 -0500
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-12 12:58 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:11 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-16 22:53 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 22:46 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 14:49 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 10:07 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 16:47 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 22:53 -0500
Re: absence of max Parity Error <kgf@quiscurat.net> - 2016-12-18 09:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 18:32 +0100
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-12 13:26 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 19:39 +0100
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-12 11:31 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 16:07 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-11 23:10 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 19:01 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 00:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 21:06 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 08:19 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 10:07 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 15:22 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:13 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-12 15:38 +0000
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-02 08:54 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-02 17:20 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 07:35 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-02 09:52 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 10:44 -0800
Re: absence of max James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-30 16:52 -0500
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-30 08:31 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-28 23:15 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 10:49 +0100
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-27 17:35 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-27 09:39 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-27 20:35 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 20:10 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-27 22:07 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 22:55 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-28 12:46 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-28 13:16 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-28 14:52 +0100
Re: absence of max jadill33@gmail.com - 2016-11-28 09:41 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 11:04 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 18:02 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-27 20:52 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 20:31 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 22:09 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-27 14:14 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 23:02 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-27 23:26 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 23:43 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-27 23:46 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-28 12:56 +0100
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-27 16:21 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-28 10:10 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Prince <tprince@computer.org> - 2016-11-27 07:40 -0500
absence of max asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-11-27 08:46 -0800
Re: absence of max fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 09:18 -0800
Re: absence of max asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-11-27 09:22 -0800
Re: absence of max fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 09:27 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 17:33 +0000
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 17:51 +0000
Re: absence of max Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-11-30 13:15 -0500
Re: absence of max "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 12:33 +0800
Page 26 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 Next page →
| From | jameskuyper@verizon.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 13:12 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c7ef7039-e0c6-4fbf-806b-7356aece245e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #98967 |
On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 9:05:01 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 12/11/2016 7:18 PM, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: > > On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 4:12:04 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > >> On 12/11/2016 1:01 PM, James R. Kuyper wrote: > >>> On 12/11/2016 10:02 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote: ... > >>> However, while he's been less than clear about it (this is Jerry after > >>> all - he doesn't know the correct definitions of many of the words he > >>> uses, such as declaration), I think what he was actually talking about > >>> may have been that, prior to ANSI prototypes, you could get argument > >>> count and argument type validity checks with some compilers, but only if > >>> you defined the called routine prior to the calling routine, in the same > >>> translation unit. > >>> > >> > >> That is correct. And back in 1985, few people called them > >> "declarations". That term did not come into common usage until ANSI > > > > K&R did. My teacher did. My boss did. That was good enough for me to use > > it. I would think that the first one would be more than sufficient for you, > > as well. However, my citation of K&R's use of the term does not seem to > > have attracted any attention from you. You haven't even bothered to claim > > that my citation was wrong, or that I misunderstood it. Not insulting me > > about such things is very out-of-character for you - did you even notice my > > citation? > > > > That's fine for you. But your teacher and boss are not good enough for > me. I'm going by what the general programming community called them. Is K&R good enough for you? Unless someone performed a comprehensive survey, "what the general programming community called them." is not in evidence. All you can say is what the people you communicated with called them, just as I can only talk about what the people I communicated with called them. A key difference: one of the communications I received was a book written by the creators of the language, THE book that became famous for popularizing the language. Incidentally, don't try to misinterpret that as a claim that I received a personal copy of the book from the authors - I bought it at the campus book store, just like most of my other classmates. That book uses the term "function declaration" casually without bothering to explain or define it, as if expecting anyone who read the term to instantly understand it. I suspect that the last time that I read that sentence prior to this discussion may have been in 1980. That sentence had no particularly strong impact on me at the time. But I'm certain that I did not react to the term "function declaration" by saying "what in the world is a function declaration?". I'm sure that I found the meaning perfectly clear in context. If I hadn't, that might have been memorable. Surely the creators of the language outrank the "general programming community"? ... > >> prototypes became popular. Then the term was used to differentiate > >> ANSI-style from K&R (pre-ANSI-style) code. > > > > No, the term "declaration" was NEVER meant to differentiate function > > prototypes from K&R-style function declarations, because K&R style function > > declarations are still supported, and are still called function > > declarations, the same way that K&R originally referred to them. > > > > You didn't read what I said, obviously. It doesn't matter what it was > MEANT to do. That's how the majority of programmers used it at the time. Without the results of a fairly large unbiased survey at hand, "how the majority of programmers used it" is not something that we can meaningfully discuss. You can only discuss how the programmers you communicated with used it, and the same is true for me. What "the majority of programmers used" is not important to me, nor relevant to any issue I addressed above. What the authors of the standard (and the authors of K&R) wrote is a much easier thing to discuss. What they meant by what they wrote is harder to discuss, but is still a lot easier to discuss than way the general programming public understood. What the official texts said and meant is the only thing I'm particularly interested in discussing here. ... > > We're arguing because you've made incorrect statements and continue to make > > incorrect use of the relevant terminology. In particular, it would appear that > > you still have not accepted that "function declaration" applies both to > > function prototypes and K&R-style function declarations. Let's take this step > > by step, and see whether there are any individual steps in the following that > > you could agree with. Do you agree that > > > > No, you're arguing because you like to argue. You are claiming you know > EVERY compiler at the time, and NONE of them did that. Wrong. I only know what the compilers I worked with did - and since I was as careful as I knew how to be, to avoid mismatches between parameter types and argument types, I knew very little about how any compiler actually handled code written by those who were less careful about that issue. Being that careful was difficult, which is I make lots of typos, and some of those typos would have had the effect of causing such mismatches, and all I can say for certain is that I never noticed any compiler handling them the way you say. I can, however, be quite certain about what K&R C, C99, and C2011 said, because I've read all four. I'm less certain about C90, since I've never owned a copy of that document. My arguments were based entirely on those texts, and address only issues that the words of those texts were capable of addressing. What "the majority of programmers" felt is not one of those issues. What the authors of those texts meant, is one of those issues. > As I said - I never made any claims about what K&R said. And the only thing I ever made any claims about was what K&R and, later, the C standard, said. So we're talking at cross purposes. > All I > discussed was what the common usage was at the time. So, when you claimed that function declarations first came out in 1985, what you actually meant is "Prior to 1985, only a minority of programmers were aware that C had something called function declarations. After some compilers starting implementing function prototypes came out in 1985, a majority of users misunderstood the term "function declaration" as referring only to the new function prototypes."? I'm not really interested in the vagaries of the general programming public's misunderstandings, even if you were right about what those misunderstandings were (which I doubt).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 03:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <877f75u9z1.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #98954 |
jameskuyper@verizon.net writes: > On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 4:12:04 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: <snip> >> I never said ALL compilers did it - just some. ... > > No one has argued that you did. I did. When supercat asked what compilers did this odd conversion he replied "every one of them". He now claims that means that rather pointless "every one I used" which of course does not answer the question. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-11 22:03 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2l3v1$omb$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98973 |
On 12/11/2016 10:01 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > jameskuyper@verizon.net writes: > >> On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 4:12:04 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > <snip> >>> I never said ALL compilers did it - just some. ... >> >> No one has argued that you did. > > I did. When supercat asked what compilers did this odd conversion he > replied "every one of them". He now claims that means that rather > pointless "every one I used" which of course does not answer the > question. > > <snip> > And you didn't read the whole thread, did you. But then trolls never do. If you would have read the thread, you would have known I was talking about every one I used. I NEVER claimed to know what every compiler ever made did. Only a troll like you would make such a claim. But we already know your head is so far up your arse that you can see your tonsils. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 12:58 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <705be62c-84eb-7c24-a2b7-45f2a94c01df@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #98973 |
On 12/11/2016 10:01 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > jameskuyper@verizon.net writes: > >> On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 4:12:04 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > <snip> >>> I never said ALL compilers did it - just some. ... >> >> No one has argued that you did. My apologies to Jerry - I was indeed wrong about that. > I did. When supercat asked what compilers did this odd conversion he > replied "every one of them". ... He was actually responding above to my description of validity checks on parameter-argument type mismatches; I wasn't talking about conversions at that point. However, you were right, he made both claims about "every one of them" in the following message: <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.c/AWkDRgWybUg/MCWSbq28AAAJ> > ... He now claims that means that rather > pointless "every one I used" which of course does not answer the > question. He said "every one of them" in response the request "can you identify some compilers ...". If he meant what he actually said, "every one of them", that would be complete identification - any compiler that existed at that time could be examined to test his claim. However, if he meant what he claims he meant, "every one I used", then he was being unresponsive to that request (what a shock!). Unless accompanied by a list of the compilers he used, such a response doesn't provide any way to identify the particular compilers his claim supposedly applies to.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 16:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o31l72$eu$6@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #99099 |
On 12/12/2016 12:58 PM, James R. Kuyper wrote: > On 12/11/2016 10:01 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> jameskuyper@verizon.net writes: >> >>> On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 4:12:04 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> <snip> >>>> I never said ALL compilers did it - just some. ... >>> >>> No one has argued that you did. > > My apologies to Jerry - I was indeed wrong about that. > >> I did. When supercat asked what compilers did this odd conversion he >> replied "every one of them". ... > > He was actually responding above to my description of validity checks on > parameter-argument type mismatches; I wasn't talking about conversions > at that point. However, you were right, he made both claims about "every > one of them" in the following message: > <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.c/AWkDRgWybUg/MCWSbq28AAAJ> > >> ... He now claims that means that rather >> pointless "every one I used" which of course does not answer the >> question. > > He said "every one of them" in response the request "can you identify > some compilers ...". If he meant what he actually said, "every one of > them", that would be complete identification - any compiler that existed > at that time could be examined to test his claim. However, if he meant > what he claims he meant, "every one I used", then he was being > unresponsive to that request (what a shock!). Unless accompanied by a > list of the compilers he used, such a response doesn't provide any way > to identify the particular compilers his claim supposedly applies to. > > > And read the ENTIRE CONTEXT - not just what was in that message. The discussion was about the compilers I used. But I know that trying to put together sentences from two different messages is way beyond your comprehension. That's why you can't understand the context of the message. But that's a troll for you. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 22:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o31nom$2o3$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #99693 |
On 16-12-16 22:11, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 12/12/2016 12:58 PM, James R. Kuyper wrote: >> On 12/11/2016 10:01 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>> jameskuyper@verizon.net writes: >>> >>>> On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 4:12:04 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> <snip> >>>>> I never said ALL compilers did it - just some. ... >>>> >>>> No one has argued that you did. >> >> My apologies to Jerry - I was indeed wrong about that. >> >>> I did. When supercat asked what compilers did this odd conversion he >>> replied "every one of them". ... >> >> He was actually responding above to my description of validity checks on >> parameter-argument type mismatches; I wasn't talking about conversions >> at that point. However, you were right, he made both claims about "every >> one of them" in the following message: >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.c/AWkDRgWybUg/MCWSbq28AAAJ> >> >>> ... He now claims that means that rather >>> pointless "every one I used" which of course does not answer the >>> question. >> >> He said "every one of them" in response the request "can you identify >> some compilers ...". If he meant what he actually said, "every one of >> them", that would be complete identification - any compiler that existed >> at that time could be examined to test his claim. However, if he meant >> what he claims he meant, "every one I used", then he was being >> unresponsive to that request (what a shock!). Unless accompanied by a >> list of the compilers he used, such a response doesn't provide any way >> to identify the particular compilers his claim supposedly applies to. >> >> >> > > And read the ENTIRE CONTEXT - not just what was in that message. The > discussion was about the compilers I used. No, it wasn't: ---8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<--- >> In pre-K&R, it was the ONLY WAY to specify the parameter list. If you >> wanted the compiler to validate the parameters being past and convert if >> necessary, you had to do it that way. > > Out of curiosity, can you identify some compilers that would do argument- > type conversions? I can believe there might have been some, but a lot of > compilers would basically have a caller lay out arguments based upon their > type (as seen by the caller) oblivious to what the called function was > expecting, and the called function would look at the indicated spots for > arguments, oblivious to what arguments the caller had actually put there. > I think "lint" tools got their start doing argument validation; I would > think they should have been able to perform validation across a number of > C files, even in the absence of prototypes (since one of the purposes of > such tools, even today, is to squawk if a function is defined using one > signature, but a caller has seen a prototype--not visible at the point of > definition--which uses a different signature). > Every one of them, if the function was defined before it was called. ---8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<--- -- Robert Spanjaard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-16 22:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o32cc0$4fg$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #99707 |
On 12/16/2016 4:53 PM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: > On 16-12-16 22:11, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/12/2016 12:58 PM, James R. Kuyper wrote: >>> On 12/11/2016 10:01 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> jameskuyper@verizon.net writes: >>>> >>>>> On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 4:12:04 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> <snip> >>>>>> I never said ALL compilers did it - just some. ... >>>>> >>>>> No one has argued that you did. >>> >>> My apologies to Jerry - I was indeed wrong about that. >>> >>>> I did. When supercat asked what compilers did this odd conversion he >>>> replied "every one of them". ... >>> >>> He was actually responding above to my description of validity checks on >>> parameter-argument type mismatches; I wasn't talking about conversions >>> at that point. However, you were right, he made both claims about "every >>> one of them" in the following message: >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.c/AWkDRgWybUg/MCWSbq28AAAJ> >>> >>>> ... He now claims that means that rather >>>> pointless "every one I used" which of course does not answer the >>>> question. >>> >>> He said "every one of them" in response the request "can you identify >>> some compilers ...". If he meant what he actually said, "every one of >>> them", that would be complete identification - any compiler that existed >>> at that time could be examined to test his claim. However, if he meant >>> what he claims he meant, "every one I used", then he was being >>> unresponsive to that request (what a shock!). Unless accompanied by a >>> list of the compilers he used, such a response doesn't provide any way >>> to identify the particular compilers his claim supposedly applies to. >>> >>> >>> >> >> And read the ENTIRE CONTEXT - not just what was in that message. The >> discussion was about the compilers I used. > > No, it wasn't: > As I said - read the WHOLE thing - not just take one message out of context. But I see you're too stoopid to do that. > ---8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<--- >>> In pre-K&R, it was the ONLY WAY to specify the parameter list. If you >>> wanted the compiler to validate the parameters being past and convert if >>> necessary, you had to do it that way. >> >> Out of curiosity, can you identify some compilers that would do argument- >> type conversions? I can believe there might have been some, but a lot of >> compilers would basically have a caller lay out arguments based upon >> their >> type (as seen by the caller) oblivious to what the called function was >> expecting, and the called function would look at the indicated spots for >> arguments, oblivious to what arguments the caller had actually put there. >> I think "lint" tools got their start doing argument validation; I would >> think they should have been able to perform validation across a number of >> C files, even in the absence of prototypes (since one of the purposes of >> such tools, even today, is to squawk if a function is defined using one >> signature, but a caller has seen a prototype--not visible at the point of >> definition--which uses a different signature). >> > > Every one of them, if the function was defined before it was called. > ---8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<--- > Learn to read. Then maybe we can discuss this intelligently. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 14:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o33fon$cor$4@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #99727 |
On 17-12-16 04:46, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 12/16/2016 4:53 PM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: >> On 16-12-16 22:11, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 12/12/2016 12:58 PM, James R. Kuyper wrote: >>>> On 12/11/2016 10:01 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>> jameskuyper@verizon.net writes: >>>>> >>>>>> On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 4:12:04 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>> <snip> >>>>>>> I never said ALL compilers did it - just some. ... >>>>>> >>>>>> No one has argued that you did. >>>> >>>> My apologies to Jerry - I was indeed wrong about that. >>>> >>>>> I did. When supercat asked what compilers did this odd conversion he >>>>> replied "every one of them". ... >>>> >>>> He was actually responding above to my description of validity checks on >>>> parameter-argument type mismatches; I wasn't talking about conversions >>>> at that point. However, you were right, he made both claims about "every >>>> one of them" in the following message: >>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.c/AWkDRgWybUg/MCWSbq28AAAJ> >>>> >>>>> ... He now claims that means that rather >>>>> pointless "every one I used" which of course does not answer the >>>>> question. >>>> >>>> He said "every one of them" in response the request "can you identify >>>> some compilers ...". If he meant what he actually said, "every one of >>>> them", that would be complete identification - any compiler that existed >>>> at that time could be examined to test his claim. However, if he meant >>>> what he claims he meant, "every one I used", then he was being >>>> unresponsive to that request (what a shock!). Unless accompanied by a >>>> list of the compilers he used, such a response doesn't provide any way >>>> to identify the particular compilers his claim supposedly applies to. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> And read the ENTIRE CONTEXT - not just what was in that message. The >>> discussion was about the compilers I used. >> >> No, it wasn't: >> > > As I said - read the WHOLE thing - not just take one message out of > context. But I see you're too stoopid to do that. This is all the context there is. >> ---8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<--- >>>> In pre-K&R, it was the ONLY WAY to specify the parameter list. If you >>>> wanted the compiler to validate the parameters being past and convert if >>>> necessary, you had to do it that way. >>> >>> Out of curiosity, can you identify some compilers that would do argument- >>> type conversions? I can believe there might have been some, but a lot of >>> compilers would basically have a caller lay out arguments based upon >>> their >>> type (as seen by the caller) oblivious to what the called function was >>> expecting, and the called function would look at the indicated spots for >>> arguments, oblivious to what arguments the caller had actually put there. >>> I think "lint" tools got their start doing argument validation; I would >>> think they should have been able to perform validation across a number of >>> C files, even in the absence of prototypes (since one of the purposes of >>> such tools, even today, is to squawk if a function is defined using one >>> signature, but a caller has seen a prototype--not visible at the point of >>> definition--which uses a different signature). >>> >> >> Every one of them, if the function was defined before it was called. >> ---8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<--- >> > > Learn to read. Then maybe we can discuss this intelligently. LOL! I think there are other obstacles to overcome before we can do that. And not on my side. :) -- Robert Spanjaard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 10:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o33k7u$hbo$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #99740 |
On 12/17/2016 8:49 AM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: > On 17-12-16 04:46, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 12/16/2016 4:53 PM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: >>> On 16-12-16 22:11, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 12/12/2016 12:58 PM, James R. Kuyper wrote: >>>>> On 12/11/2016 10:01 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>>>> jameskuyper@verizon.net writes: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Sunday, December 11, 2016 at 4:12:04 PM UTC-5, Jerry Stuckle >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>> I never said ALL compilers did it - just some. ... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No one has argued that you did. >>>>> >>>>> My apologies to Jerry - I was indeed wrong about that. >>>>> >>>>>> I did. When supercat asked what compilers did this odd conversion he >>>>>> replied "every one of them". ... >>>>> >>>>> He was actually responding above to my description of validity >>>>> checks on >>>>> parameter-argument type mismatches; I wasn't talking about conversions >>>>> at that point. However, you were right, he made both claims about >>>>> "every >>>>> one of them" in the following message: >>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msg/comp.lang.c/AWkDRgWybUg/MCWSbq28AAAJ> >>>>> >>>>>> ... He now claims that means that rather >>>>>> pointless "every one I used" which of course does not answer the >>>>>> question. >>>>> >>>>> He said "every one of them" in response the request "can you identify >>>>> some compilers ...". If he meant what he actually said, "every one of >>>>> them", that would be complete identification - any compiler that >>>>> existed >>>>> at that time could be examined to test his claim. However, if he meant >>>>> what he claims he meant, "every one I used", then he was being >>>>> unresponsive to that request (what a shock!). Unless accompanied by a >>>>> list of the compilers he used, such a response doesn't provide any way >>>>> to identify the particular compilers his claim supposedly applies to. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> And read the ENTIRE CONTEXT - not just what was in that message. The >>>> discussion was about the compilers I used. >>> >>> No, it wasn't: >>> >> >> As I said - read the WHOLE thing - not just take one message out of >> context. But I see you're too stoopid to do that. > > This is all the context there is. > It shows your complete lack of reading comprehension. And the fact you're too stoopid to understand the entire context. But that's how trolls are. They take things out of context and then claim that's all the context there is. >>> ---8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<--- >>>>> In pre-K&R, it was the ONLY WAY to specify the parameter list. If you >>>>> wanted the compiler to validate the parameters being past and >>>>> convert if >>>>> necessary, you had to do it that way. >>>> >>>> Out of curiosity, can you identify some compilers that would do >>>> argument- >>>> type conversions? I can believe there might have been some, but a >>>> lot of >>>> compilers would basically have a caller lay out arguments based upon >>>> their >>>> type (as seen by the caller) oblivious to what the called function was >>>> expecting, and the called function would look at the indicated spots >>>> for >>>> arguments, oblivious to what arguments the caller had actually put >>>> there. >>>> I think "lint" tools got their start doing argument validation; I would >>>> think they should have been able to perform validation across a >>>> number of >>>> C files, even in the absence of prototypes (since one of the >>>> purposes of >>>> such tools, even today, is to squawk if a function is defined using one >>>> signature, but a caller has seen a prototype--not visible at the >>>> point of >>>> definition--which uses a different signature). >>>> >>> >>> Every one of them, if the function was defined before it was called. >>> ---8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<------8<--- >>> >> >> Learn to read. Then maybe we can discuss this intelligently. > > LOL! I think there are other obstacles to overcome before we can do that. > And not on my side. :) > Yes, you need to learn to read. Then maybe we can discuss things intelligently. But trolls never do learn. They just take things out of context and use things like a failed computer in a niche market as "proof". -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 16:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o33mmf$qnc$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #99748 |
On 17-12-16 16:07, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>> And read the ENTIRE CONTEXT - not just what was in that message. The >>>>> discussion was about the compilers I used. >>>> >>>> No, it wasn't: >>>> >>> >>> As I said - read the WHOLE thing - not just take one message out of >>> context. But I see you're too stoopid to do that. >> >> This is all the context there is. >> > > It shows your complete lack of reading comprehension. That argument again? It shows your complete lack of creativity. > And the fact > you're too stoopid to understand the entire context. There is no more context. >>> Learn to read. Then maybe we can discuss this intelligently. >> >> LOL! I think there are other obstacles to overcome before we can do that. >> And not on my side. :) >> > > Yes, you need to learn to read. Useless when you give me nothing worth reading. -- Robert Spanjaard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-17 22:53 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o3514f$qpq$5@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #99752 |
On 12/17/2016 10:47 AM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: > On 17-12-16 16:07, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>> And read the ENTIRE CONTEXT - not just what was in that message. The >>>>>> discussion was about the compilers I used. >>>>> >>>>> No, it wasn't: >>>>> >>>> >>>> As I said - read the WHOLE thing - not just take one message out of >>>> context. But I see you're too stoopid to do that. >>> >>> This is all the context there is. >>> >> >> It shows your complete lack of reading comprehension. > > That argument again? It shows your complete lack of creativity. > No argument. Just the truth. No "creativity" required. >> And the fact >> you're too stoopid to understand the entire context. > > There is no more context. > Another proof of your reading comprehension problems. >>>> Learn to read. Then maybe we can discuss this intelligently. >>> >>> LOL! I think there are other obstacles to overcome before we can do >>> that. >>> And not on my side. :) >>> >> >> Yes, you need to learn to read. > > Useless when you give me nothing worth reading. > The text is out there already. But you are unable to comprehend simple it. Just like a troll. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Parity Error <kgf@quiscurat.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-18 09:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <lps5A.321101$Jb1.183392@fx21.am4> |
| In reply to | #99752 |
On 17/12/16 15:47, Robert Spanjaard wrote: > On 17-12-16 16:07, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>> And read the ENTIRE CONTEXT - not just what was in that message. The >>>>>> discussion was about the compilers I used. >>>>> >>>>> No, it wasn't: >>>>> >>>> >>>> As I said - read the WHOLE thing - not just take one message out of >>>> context. But I see you're too stoopid to do that. >>> >>> This is all the context there is. >>> >> >> It shows your complete lack of reading comprehension. > > That argument again? It shows your complete lack of creativity. > >> And the fact >> you're too stoopid to understand the entire context. > > There is no more context. > >>>> Learn to read. Then maybe we can discuss this intelligently. >>> >>> LOL! I think there are other obstacles to overcome before we can do >>> that. >>> And not on my side. :) >>> >> >> Yes, you need to learn to read. > > Useless when you give me nothing worth reading. you shuld stop picking onjerry he is telling teh truth and you are rong i know he s right becuse he has an accout on oru server we are iso c xperts and sime of us are on the isi comittee and we are alwas right and he is on our server so he s right too you are all rong xept jerry
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 18:32 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o2mmvr$fkf$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #98954 |
On 12-12-16 01:18, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: >>>> Rather, I was arguing against your claim, quoted above and repeated >>>> here. You said: "ANSI prototypes came out of that so that you didn't >>>> need the function defined before you called it". That claim is incorrect. >>> >>> You're quite right - K&R style declarations allow that too. >> >> No, K&R did not allow for ANSI-style prototypes. The only declaration >> it allowed was for the return type of the function. > > Yes, and K&R style function declarations share one feature in common with > declarations written as function prototypes: both of them would allow you > to call a function without having defined it yet. > > Of course, in K&R C, if a function returned an 'int' value, you could call it > even without having a declaration in scope. If it didn't return an 'int', you > could call it anyway, at the cost of giving your program undefined behavior > because the compiler would assume that it did return 'int'. However, if you > wanted to have defined behavior for a function that returned any type other > than 'int', a K&R style function declaration was sufficient to allow that; a > function definition was not needed, and neither was a function prototype. > That's still true in modern C. Just nitpicking here, but because this part of the discussion is about "using the right words" I think it's an important detail. As far as I know, in the first edition of K&R, the term "function declaration" is not used. K&R does write about "declaration of the type of a function". It's a small difference, but declaring a (complete) function and declaring (only) the /type/ of a function are not the same thing. > No, the term "declaration" was NEVER meant to differentiate function prototypes > from K&R-style function declarations, because K&R style function declarations > are still supported, and are still called function declarations, the same way > that K&R originally referred to them. ...so this part of your reply might be wrong, if I understand you correctly and read K&R 1 correctly. -- Robert Spanjaard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 13:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <3f544fd2-83af-9f6c-4600-469672143fc4@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #99092 |
On 12/12/2016 12:32 PM, Robert Spanjaard wrote:
> On 12-12-16 01:18, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote:
...
>> Yes, and K&R style function declarations share one feature in common with
>> declarations written as function prototypes: both of them would allow you
>> to call a function without having defined it yet.
>>
>> Of course, in K&R C, if a function returned an 'int' value, you could call it
>> even without having a declaration in scope. If it didn't return an 'int', you
>> could call it anyway, at the cost of giving your program undefined behavior
>> because the compiler would assume that it did return 'int'. However, if you
>> wanted to have defined behavior for a function that returned any type other
>> than 'int', a K&R style function declaration was sufficient to allow that; a
>> function definition was not needed, and neither was a function prototype.
>> That's still true in modern C.
>
> Just nitpicking here, but because this part of the discussion is about
> "using the right words" I think it's an important detail. As far as I know,
> in the first edition of K&R, the term "function declaration" is not used.
I previous provided a precise citation of a section and page number of
K&R, 1st edition, where that term is used. Since my copy is not
electronically searchable, I can't be sure it's the only place, but it's
not implausible that it is. I searched all of the places I thought most
likely, without finding any use of the term; I only found this
particular use by accident.
> K&R does write about "declaration of the type of a function". It's a small
> difference, but declaring a (complete) function and declaring (only) the
> /type/ of a function are not the same thing.
K&R does not define the term "function declaration". It does define the
term "declaration", and it specifies a way of declaring that a specific
identifier identifies a function. It seems to me entirely reasonable and
obvious to refer to such a declaration as a "function declaration", and
Jerry's said nothing to justify treating that as an unjustifiable
meaning for that term. K&R uses that term in Appendix A, section 17,
page 213. It doesn't explain the term, it just assumes that the reader
would know what it means, which argues that K&R must not have felt that
the majority of C programmers would be mystified by the term (unlike,
apparently, Jerry and his colleagues).
One reason why I know that Jerry hasn't bothered checking out this
citation is it's context. There's nothing about the context that
invalidates it as evidence that "function declaration" was a term that
was already in actual use by C experts in 1978.
However, for someone like Jerry to whom rational discussion is a foreign
language, the context of that citation has several features that he
could use to justify ignoring it. First of all, section 17 is
"Anachronisms". K&R doesn't say that function declarations were
anachronisms - it just talks about them in the context of describing a
particular anachronism. Secondly, K&R doesn't actually describe
something as being a function declaration - it describes it as
resembling a function declaration, while actually being an example of
anachronistic syntax. I'm quite sure that if he had ever actually
checked out my citation, he would have made an argument against it based
on one or the other of those facts. Here's the full context:
" The syntax of initislizers has changed: previously, the equals sign
that introduces an initializer was not present, so instead of
int x = 1;
one used
int x 1;
The change was made because the initialization
int f (1+2)
resembles a function declaration closely enough to confuse the compilers."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 19:39 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o2mqso$n42$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #99103 |
On 12-12-16 19:26, James R. Kuyper wrote: > On 12/12/2016 12:32 PM, Robert Spanjaard wrote: >> On 12-12-16 01:18, jameskuyper@verizon.net wrote: > ... >>> Yes, and K&R style function declarations share one feature in common with >>> declarations written as function prototypes: both of them would allow you >>> to call a function without having defined it yet. >>> >>> Of course, in K&R C, if a function returned an 'int' value, you could call it >>> even without having a declaration in scope. If it didn't return an 'int', you >>> could call it anyway, at the cost of giving your program undefined behavior >>> because the compiler would assume that it did return 'int'. However, if you >>> wanted to have defined behavior for a function that returned any type other >>> than 'int', a K&R style function declaration was sufficient to allow that; a >>> function definition was not needed, and neither was a function prototype. >>> That's still true in modern C. >> >> Just nitpicking here, but because this part of the discussion is about >> "using the right words" I think it's an important detail. As far as I know, >> in the first edition of K&R, the term "function declaration" is not used. > > I previous provided a precise citation of a section and page number of > K&R, 1st edition, where that term is used. Since my copy is not > electronically searchable, I can't be sure it's the only place, but it's [...big snip...] > meaning for that term. K&R uses that term in Appendix A, section 17, [...big snip...] > " The syntax of initislizers has changed: previously, the equals sign > that introduces an initializer was not present, so instead of > > int x = 1; > > one used > > int x 1; > > The change was made because the initialization > > int f (1+2) > > resembles a function declaration closely enough to confuse the compilers." Ah, I see, page 212/213 indeed. I only searched in the obvious places, chapter 1 and 4. Hence the disclaimer "if I read K&R 1 correctly". Thanks. :) -- Robert Spanjaard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 11:31 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lnlgvlq6zn.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #99092 |
Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> writes:
[...]
> Just nitpicking here, but because this part of the discussion is about
> "using the right words" I think it's an important detail. As far as I know,
> in the first edition of K&R, the term "function declaration" is not used.
> K&R does write about "declaration of the type of a function". It's a small
> difference, but declaring a (complete) function and declaring (only) the
> /type/ of a function are not the same thing.
If by "declaring a (complete) function" you mean something like
func(arg)
double arg;
{
return arg;
}
then that's a function *definition*, not (just) a declaration. K&R1
definition does talk about "function definitions" (page 204, section
10.1 of the "C Reference Manual" section).
I think someone else cited a use of the phrase "function declaration" in
K&R1. I don't remember the details, but the index has an entry for
"declaration of function" pointing to page 194:
Now imagine a declaration
T D1
where T is a type-specifier ... and D1 is a declarator.
[...]
If D1 has the form
D()
then the contained identifier has the type "... function returning T".
[...]
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-11 16:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2kf3k$jlb$5@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98806 |
On 12/11/2016 10:02 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 10/12/16 04:33, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 12/9/2016 11:10 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 09/12/16 15:40, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 12/9/2016 3:42 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>> On 09/12/16 03:32, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> ANSI prototypes came out of that so that you didn't need the function
>>>>>> defined before you called it.
>>>>>
>>>>> That isn't what prototypes are for. That's what declarations are for.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> And what is an ANSI prototype? Is it not a declaration?
>>>
>>> Yes. All prototypes are declarations, but not all declarations are
>>> prototypes. A declaration allows you to write code to call a function
>>> even though the compiler has not seen the definition. Thus:
>>>
>>> #include <stdio.h>
>>>
>>> int foo();
>>>
>>> int main()
>>> {
>>> int i = foo();
>>> printf("%d\n", i);
>>> return 0;
>>> }
>>>
>>> will compile, even though we can't see foo(). Note that int foo(); is a
>>> declaration, but not a prototype.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And aren't you the one that said that pre-ANSI also had declarations?
>>>
>>> No, but I would certainly agree with that claim.
>>>
>>>> But once again you are arguing just to argue.
>>>
>>> If you were right, I wouldn't bother to argue with you.
>>>
>>>> You continue to show what a fool you are.
>>>
>>> A fool I may be, but I know the difference between a declaration and a
>>> prototype. And now, *if* you have the wit to read for comprehension for
>>> a change, so do you.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, I understand what you are saying. Better than you understand
>> ANYTHING I've said.
>
> I have long since learned that, when you claim to understand /anything/,
> I must take that claim with a pinch of salt.
>
>> Your "declaration" is pre-ANSI style and only allowed for compatibility.
>> And it shows the exact reason why compilers improved.
>
> No need for scare quotes. It /is/ a declaration.
>
>> What happens if foo() actually took two ints, a double and a string?
>
> Bad things, which is why prototypes were introduced.
>
Gee, and before there were prototypes, some compilers looked at the
definition for guidance. What's so hard to understand about that?
>> What's going to happen when main() calls it with no parameters?
>
> You are trying to make the case for prototypes. You don't need to do
> that. I know the case for prototypes, and I am perfectly happy with it.
> I wasn't arguing that prototypes or bad. Nor was I arguing that function
> declarations that don't specify the number and types of their arguments
> are good.
>
This was before prototypes were in common use.
> Rather, I was arguing against your claim, quoted above and repeated
> here. You said: "ANSI prototypes came out of that so that you didn't
> need the function defined before you called it". That claim is incorrect.
>
Wrong again, as my code above proved. ANSI-style prototypes were in use
even in 1985, long before C++ was released.
> Have you since retracted that claim while I wasn't looking, or do you
> still stand by it?
>
I still stand by it. I was there. You obviously weren't.
But then I already know you argue from a position of ignorance, just to
argue.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-11 23:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2km9v$2ge$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #98899 |
On 11/12/16 21:07, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 12/11/2016 10:02 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 10/12/16 04:33, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> On 12/9/2016 11:10 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 09/12/16 15:40, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>> On 12/9/2016 3:42 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>> On 09/12/16 03:32, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ANSI prototypes came out of that so that you didn't need the function
>>>>>>> defined before you called it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That isn't what prototypes are for. That's what declarations are for.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And what is an ANSI prototype? Is it not a declaration?
>>>>
>>>> Yes. All prototypes are declarations, but not all declarations are
>>>> prototypes. A declaration allows you to write code to call a function
>>>> even though the compiler has not seen the definition. Thus:
>>>>
>>>> #include <stdio.h>
>>>>
>>>> int foo();
>>>>
>>>> int main()
>>>> {
>>>> int i = foo();
>>>> printf("%d\n", i);
>>>> return 0;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> will compile, even though we can't see foo(). Note that int foo(); is a
>>>> declaration, but not a prototype.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And aren't you the one that said that pre-ANSI also had declarations?
>>>>
>>>> No, but I would certainly agree with that claim.
>>>>
>>>>> But once again you are arguing just to argue.
>>>>
>>>> If you were right, I wouldn't bother to argue with you.
>>>>
>>>>> You continue to show what a fool you are.
>>>>
>>>> A fool I may be, but I know the difference between a declaration and a
>>>> prototype. And now, *if* you have the wit to read for comprehension for
>>>> a change, so do you.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh, I understand what you are saying. Better than you understand
>>> ANYTHING I've said.
>>
>> I have long since learned that, when you claim to understand /anything/,
>> I must take that claim with a pinch of salt.
>>
>>> Your "declaration" is pre-ANSI style and only allowed for compatibility.
>>> And it shows the exact reason why compilers improved.
>>
>> No need for scare quotes. It /is/ a declaration.
>>
>>> What happens if foo() actually took two ints, a double and a string?
>>
>> Bad things, which is why prototypes were introduced.
>>
>
> Gee, and before there were prototypes, some compilers looked at the
> definition for guidance. What's so hard to understand about that?
Nothing at all, but that isn't what you claimed. What you claimed was
that "ANSI prototypes came out of that so that you didn't need the
function defined before you called it." Your claim is incorrect because
even without ANSI prototypes a declaration permitted you to call the
function ahead of its definition.
So the only real question is whether you're still in the "everybody's an
idiot for disagreeing with Jerry Stuckle" stage or whether you've moved
seamlessly on to the "Jerry Stuckle ceded that point ages ago, and
everybody's an idiot for still banging on about it" stage.
--
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 | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-11 19:01 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o2kpah$p7q$3@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #98938 |
On 12/11/2016 6:10 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 11/12/16 21:07, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 12/11/2016 10:02 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 10/12/16 04:33, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 12/9/2016 11:10 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>> On 09/12/16 15:40, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/9/2016 3:42 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>> On 09/12/16 03:32, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ANSI prototypes came out of that so that you didn't need the
>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>> defined before you called it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That isn't what prototypes are for. That's what declarations are
>>>>>>> for.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And what is an ANSI prototype? Is it not a declaration?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes. All prototypes are declarations, but not all declarations are
>>>>> prototypes. A declaration allows you to write code to call a function
>>>>> even though the compiler has not seen the definition. Thus:
>>>>>
>>>>> #include <stdio.h>
>>>>>
>>>>> int foo();
>>>>>
>>>>> int main()
>>>>> {
>>>>> int i = foo();
>>>>> printf("%d\n", i);
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> will compile, even though we can't see foo(). Note that int foo();
>>>>> is a
>>>>> declaration, but not a prototype.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And aren't you the one that said that pre-ANSI also had declarations?
>>>>>
>>>>> No, but I would certainly agree with that claim.
>>>>>
>>>>>> But once again you are arguing just to argue.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you were right, I wouldn't bother to argue with you.
>>>>>
>>>>>> You continue to show what a fool you are.
>>>>>
>>>>> A fool I may be, but I know the difference between a declaration and a
>>>>> prototype. And now, *if* you have the wit to read for comprehension
>>>>> for
>>>>> a change, so do you.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Oh, I understand what you are saying. Better than you understand
>>>> ANYTHING I've said.
>>>
>>> I have long since learned that, when you claim to understand /anything/,
>>> I must take that claim with a pinch of salt.
>>>
>>>> Your "declaration" is pre-ANSI style and only allowed for
>>>> compatibility.
>>>> And it shows the exact reason why compilers improved.
>>>
>>> No need for scare quotes. It /is/ a declaration.
>>>
>>>> What happens if foo() actually took two ints, a double and a string?
>>>
>>> Bad things, which is why prototypes were introduced.
>>>
>>
>> Gee, and before there were prototypes, some compilers looked at the
>> definition for guidance. What's so hard to understand about that?
>
> Nothing at all, but that isn't what you claimed. What you claimed was
> that "ANSI prototypes came out of that so that you didn't need the
> function defined before you called it." Your claim is incorrect because
> even without ANSI prototypes a declaration permitted you to call the
> function ahead of its definition.
>
> So the only real question is whether you're still in the "everybody's an
> idiot for disagreeing with Jerry Stuckle" stage or whether you've moved
> seamlessly on to the "Jerry Stuckle ceded that point ages ago, and
> everybody's an idiot for still banging on about it" stage.
>
You really don't understand anything at all in this conversation, yet
you continue to try to show that you do. You need to work on your
reading comprehension problem. Taking quotes out of context doesn't work.
But it's something you continue to try, despite it showing what a fool
you are.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-12 00:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o2kpsi$19l$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #98947 |
On 12/12/16 00:01, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> On 12/11/2016 6:10 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 11/12/16 21:07, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>> On 12/11/2016 10:02 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 10/12/16 04:33, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>> On 12/9/2016 11:10 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>> On 09/12/16 15:40, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/9/2016 3:42 AM, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 09/12/16 03:32, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ANSI prototypes came out of that so that you didn't need the
>>>>>>>>> function
>>>>>>>>> defined before you called it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That isn't what prototypes are for. That's what declarations are
>>>>>>>> for.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And what is an ANSI prototype? Is it not a declaration?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes. All prototypes are declarations, but not all declarations are
>>>>>> prototypes. A declaration allows you to write code to call a function
>>>>>> even though the compiler has not seen the definition. Thus:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> #include <stdio.h>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int foo();
>>>>>>
>>>>>> int main()
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> int i = foo();
>>>>>> printf("%d\n", i);
>>>>>> return 0;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> will compile, even though we can't see foo(). Note that int foo();
>>>>>> is a
>>>>>> declaration, but not a prototype.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And aren't you the one that said that pre-ANSI also had declarations?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, but I would certainly agree with that claim.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But once again you are arguing just to argue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you were right, I wouldn't bother to argue with you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You continue to show what a fool you are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A fool I may be, but I know the difference between a declaration and a
>>>>>> prototype. And now, *if* you have the wit to read for comprehension
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> a change, so do you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh, I understand what you are saying. Better than you understand
>>>>> ANYTHING I've said.
>>>>
>>>> I have long since learned that, when you claim to understand /anything/,
>>>> I must take that claim with a pinch of salt.
>>>>
>>>>> Your "declaration" is pre-ANSI style and only allowed for
>>>>> compatibility.
>>>>> And it shows the exact reason why compilers improved.
>>>>
>>>> No need for scare quotes. It /is/ a declaration.
>>>>
>>>>> What happens if foo() actually took two ints, a double and a string?
>>>>
>>>> Bad things, which is why prototypes were introduced.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Gee, and before there were prototypes, some compilers looked at the
>>> definition for guidance. What's so hard to understand about that?
>>
>> Nothing at all, but that isn't what you claimed. What you claimed was
>> that "ANSI prototypes came out of that so that you didn't need the
>> function defined before you called it." Your claim is incorrect because
>> even without ANSI prototypes a declaration permitted you to call the
>> function ahead of its definition.
>>
>> So the only real question is whether you're still in the "everybody's an
>> idiot for disagreeing with Jerry Stuckle" stage or whether you've moved
>> seamlessly on to the "Jerry Stuckle ceded that point ages ago, and
>> everybody's an idiot for still banging on about it" stage.
>>
>
> You really don't understand anything at all in this conversation, yet
> you continue to try to show that you do.
Well, I understand that you made an incorrect claim about prototypes. I
realise this is difficult for you.
--
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]
Page 26 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 24 25 [26] 27 28 29 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web