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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #10309 > unrolled thread

Reversing a linked list

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

Contents

  Reversing a linked list jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-16 08:30 +0200
    Re: Reversing a linked list jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-16 08:33 +0200
    Re: Reversing a linked list Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-16 12:51 +0100
      Re: Reversing a linked list jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-16 14:18 +0200
        Re: Reversing a linked list jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-16 14:26 +0200
          Re: Reversing a linked list Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-16 07:09 -0700
            Re: Reversing a linked list ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-09-16 08:28 -0700
              Re: Reversing a linked list falk@rahul.net (Edward A. Falk) - 2011-09-16 16:34 +0000
              Re: Reversing a linked list Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-16 09:28 -0700
                Re: Reversing a linked list ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-09-16 11:12 -0700
                  Re: Reversing a linked list "Tony" <nospamme@ever.net> - 2011-09-16 20:01 -0500
        Re: Reversing a linked list Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-16 21:56 +0100
          Re: Reversing a linked list "Tony" <nospamme@ever.net> - 2011-09-16 20:16 -0500
            Re: Reversing a linked list Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-17 02:48 +0100
              Re: Reversing a linked list "Tony" <nospamme@ever.net> - 2011-09-16 22:15 -0500
                Re: Reversing a linked list jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-17 07:40 +0200
                  Re: Reversing a linked list "Tony" <nospamme@ever.net> - 2011-09-17 01:24 -0500
                  Re: Reversing a linked list cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-17 15:07 +0000
                    Re: Reversing a linked list jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-17 17:47 +0200
                      Re: Reversing a linked list jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-17 17:54 +0200
                    Re: Reversing a linked list Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-09-27 19:21 -0700
                Re: Reversing a linked list Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-17 12:00 +0100
                  Re: Reversing a linked list "Tony" <nospamme@ever.net> - 2011-09-17 23:53 -0500
      Re: Reversing a linked list ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-09-16 07:21 -0700
        Re: Reversing a linked list jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-16 16:47 +0200
          Re: Reversing a linked list Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-16 08:20 -0700
          Re: Reversing a linked list "Tony" <nospamme@ever.net> - 2011-09-16 20:25 -0500
        Re: Reversing a linked list Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-16 22:32 +0100
        Re: Reversing a linked list pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-09-16 17:53 -0400
      Re: Reversing a linked list "Tony" <nospamme@ever.net> - 2011-09-16 19:48 -0500
        Re: Reversing a linked list Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-17 02:41 +0100
          Re: Reversing a linked list "Tony" <nospamme@ever.net> - 2011-09-16 22:57 -0500
            Re: Reversing a linked list "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-17 12:48 +0100
              Re: Reversing a linked list jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-17 13:55 +0200
              Re: Reversing a linked list "Tony" <nospamme@ever.net> - 2011-09-17 23:39 -0500
    Re: Reversing a linked list HENRY Eshbaugh <henryeshbaugh@gmail.com> - 2011-09-16 16:56 -0700
      Re: Reversing a linked list Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-17 12:09 +1200
        Re: Reversing a linked list HENRY Eshbaugh <henryeshbaugh@gmail.com> - 2011-09-16 19:53 -0700
          Re: Reversing a linked list "Tony" <nospamme@ever.net> - 2011-09-16 23:00 -0500
            Re: Reversing a linked list Jonathan Leffler <jleffler@earthlink.net> - 2011-09-16 23:20 -0700
            Re: Reversing a linked list Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-17 13:46 -0700
              Re: Reversing a linked list henry eshbaugh <henryeshbaugh@gmail.com> - 2011-09-17 19:51 -0700
                Re: Reversing a linked list Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-18 01:28 -0700
                  Re: Reversing a linked list henry eshbaugh <henryeshbaugh@gmail.com> - 2011-09-18 15:39 -0700
                    Re: Reversing a linked list Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-18 22:43 +0000
                      Re: Reversing a linked list henry eshbaugh <henryeshbaugh@gmail.com> - 2011-09-18 17:54 -0700
                        Re: Reversing a linked list James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-18 21:20 -0400
                    Re: Reversing a linked list Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-18 17:30 -0700
                      Re: Reversing a linked list henry eshbaugh <henryeshbaugh@gmail.com> - 2011-09-18 17:51 -0700
                        Re: Reversing a linked list James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-18 21:34 -0400
                        Re: Reversing a linked list Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-18 21:25 -0500
                        Re: Reversing a linked list Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-19 09:56 -0700
                          Re: Reversing a linked list gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-19 17:16 +0000
                          Re: Reversing a linked list Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-19 17:25 +0000
                            Re: Reversing a linked list Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-19 23:40 -0700
                            Re: Reversing a linked list henry eshbaugh <henryeshbaugh@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 17:55 -0700
                          Re: Reversing a linked list henry eshbaugh <henryeshbaugh@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 17:48 -0700
                            Re: Reversing a linked list Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-09-20 19:12 -0700
                              Re: Reversing a linked list henry eshbaugh <henryeshbaugh@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 10:15 -0700
                                Re: Reversing a linked list David Resnick <lndresnick@gmail.com> - 2011-09-22 08:43 -0700
                                  Re: Reversing a linked list Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-23 02:45 -0700
                                    Re: Reversing a linked list David Resnick <lndresnick@gmail.com> - 2011-09-23 05:38 -0700
                                      Re: Reversing a linked list Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-23 07:58 -0700
                                        Re: Reversing a linked list David Resnick <lndresnick@gmail.com> - 2011-09-23 08:15 -0700
                                          Re: Reversing a linked list Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-23 18:00 +0100
                                            Re: Reversing a linked list David Resnick <lndresnick@gmail.com> - 2011-09-23 10:49 -0700
                                              Re: Reversing a linked list Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-23 20:05 +0100
                                            Re: Reversing a linked list pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-09-23 18:05 -0400
                                              Re: Reversing a linked list Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-24 00:19 +0100
                                        Re: Reversing a linked list ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-09-23 09:25 -0700
                                Re: Reversing a linked list Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-22 22:49 +0300
                            Re: Reversing a linked list Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-20 19:51 -0700
                              Re: Reversing a linked list henry eshbaugh <henryeshbaugh@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 09:51 -0700
                                Re: Reversing a linked list Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-21 11:21 -0700
                            Re: Reversing a linked list James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-20 23:00 -0400
                              Re: Reversing a linked list henry eshbaugh <henryeshbaugh@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 09:47 -0700
                                Re: Reversing a linked list Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-23 11:22 +0300
                                  Re: Reversing a linked list Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-23 08:20 -0700
                                    Re: Reversing a linked list Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-23 18:12 +0100
                                      Re: Reversing a linked list Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-01-24 13:13 -0800
                                    Re: Reversing a linked list Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-23 23:49 +0300
                                      Re: Reversing a linked list James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-24 08:15 -0400
                                        Re: Reversing a linked list Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-24 20:15 +0300
                                      Re: Reversing a linked list Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-01-24 13:28 -0800
                                        Re: Reversing a linked list Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-02-12 01:41 +0200
                                          Re: Reversing a linked list Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-03-08 09:08 -0800
                                            Re: Reversing a linked list Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2012-03-13 17:21 +0200
                              Re: Reversing a linked list Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-01-24 13:04 -0800
                            Re: Reversing a linked list Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-09-23 01:46 +0000
                    Re: Reversing a linked list James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-18 21:17 -0400
              Re: Reversing a linked list "Tony" <nospamme@ever.net> - 2011-09-17 23:50 -0500
                Re: Reversing a linked list Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-18 01:29 -0700
          Re: Reversing a linked list Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-09-18 07:03 +0000
      Re: Reversing a linked list Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-17 02:13 +0100
        Re: Reversing a linked list HENRY Eshbaugh <henryeshbaugh@gmail.com> - 2011-09-16 19:52 -0700
          Re: Reversing a linked list Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-17 08:58 +0000
            Re: Reversing a linked list henry eshbaugh <henryeshbaugh@gmail.com> - 2011-09-18 15:32 -0700
              Re: Reversing a linked list James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-18 21:36 -0400
                Re: Reversing a linked list cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 05:24 +0000
                  Re: Reversing a linked list James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-19 08:21 -0400
                    Re: Reversing a linked list cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 14:28 +0000
                      Re: Reversing a linked list Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-19 17:01 +0100
                        Re: Reversing a linked list cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 16:25 +0000
                  Re: Reversing a linked list henry eshbaugh <henryeshbaugh@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 10:41 -0700
                    Re: Reversing a linked list Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-21 17:58 +0000
                    Re: Reversing a linked list James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-21 14:07 -0400
                    Re: Reversing a linked list Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-21 11:15 -0700
                      Re: Reversing a linked list Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-21 11:37 -0700
                        Re: Reversing a linked list Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-23 11:50 +0300
                    Re: Reversing a linked list Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-09-23 01:46 +0000
      Re: Reversing a linked list Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-09-18 18:22 -0700
    Re: Reversing a linked list "Tony" <nospamme@ever.net> - 2011-09-16 19:37 -0500
      Re: Reversing a linked list jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-17 07:52 +0200
        Re: Reversing a linked list "Tony" <nospamme@ever.net> - 2011-09-17 02:09 -0500
          Re: Reversing a linked list Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-17 19:35 +1200
            Re: Reversing a linked list "Tony" <nospamme@ever.net> - 2011-09-17 03:35 -0500
          Programming languages jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-17 22:14 +0200
            Re: Programming languages "Tony" <nospamme@ever.net> - 2011-09-18 00:11 -0500
              Re: Programming languages jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-18 08:37 +0200
              Re: Programming languages Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-09-18 07:03 +0000
                Re: Programming languages jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-18 09:50 +0200
                Re: Programming languages Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-18 01:31 -0700
                  Re: Programming languages James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-18 06:43 -0400
                    Re: Programming languages Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-18 07:42 -0700
                  Re: Programming languages "Tony" <nospamme@ever.net> - 2011-09-18 04:05 -0500
              Re: Programming languages Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-18 07:40 -0700
    Re: Reversing a linked list Gene <gene.ressler@gmail.com> - 2011-09-22 06:59 -0700

Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7  Next page →

#10493

On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:21:13 -0400, James Kuyper
<jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:

>On 09/19/2011 01:24 AM, Richard Harter wrote:
>> On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 21:36:59 -0400, James Kuyper
>> <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:
>> 
>>> On 09/18/2011 06:32 PM, henry eshbaugh wrote:
>>>> On Sep 17, 4:58�am, Willem <wil...@toad.stack.nl> wrote:
>>> ...
>>>>> ... it can be done in O(1) space.
>>> ...
>>>> ... It's impossible to do it in O(1) time,
>>>
>>> Compare the last words in those two sentences, and then think about it
>>> for a while.
>> 
>> It is quite clear from his post that he understands the difference.
>
>Not to me. It read to me like something that was intended to contradict
>the previous claim. I've just tried re-reading it on the assumption that
>he did understand the difference, and it come across as a complete
>non-sequitur. I've seen people post non-sequiturs before, so I'll
>concede that it's entirely possible that's what he did.

But it's not a non sequitur.  He's elaborating on Willem's comment on
Ben's preference for recursion.  He makes two additional points (a)
recursion will not buy you anything in time, and (b) recursion not
only wastes space, it can blow out your stack.  Scarcely one of your
great moments in computer science but both are valid  points.

   

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

#10499

cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes:

> On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:21:13 -0400, James Kuyper
> <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>On 09/19/2011 01:24 AM, Richard Harter wrote:
>>> On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 21:36:59 -0400, James Kuyper
>>> <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 09/18/2011 06:32 PM, henry eshbaugh wrote:
>>>>> On Sep 17, 4:58�am, Willem <wil...@toad.stack.nl> wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>>> ... it can be done in O(1) space.
>>>> ...
>>>>> ... It's impossible to do it in O(1) time,
>>>>
>>>> Compare the last words in those two sentences, and then think about it
>>>> for a while.
>>> 
>>> It is quite clear from his post that he understands the difference.
>>
>>Not to me. It read to me like something that was intended to contradict
>>the previous claim. I've just tried re-reading it on the assumption that
>>he did understand the difference, and it come across as a complete
>>non-sequitur. I've seen people post non-sequiturs before, so I'll
>>concede that it's entirely possible that's what he did.
>
> But it's not a non sequitur.  He's elaborating on Willem's comment on
> Ben's preference for recursion.

Eh?  How did you get that from this thread?  My "readable, elegant,
correct; pick any two" was facetious.  I can't see how it can be taken
as a preference for recursion.

<snip>
-- 
Ben.

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

#10501

On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 17:01:52 +0100, Ben Bacarisse
<ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:

>cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes:
>
>> On Mon, 19 Sep 2011 08:21:13 -0400, James Kuyper
>> <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On 09/19/2011 01:24 AM, Richard Harter wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 21:36:59 -0400, James Kuyper
>>>> <jameskuyper@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 09/18/2011 06:32 PM, henry eshbaugh wrote:
>>>>>> On Sep 17, 4:58�am, Willem <wil...@toad.stack.nl> wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> ... it can be done in O(1) space.
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> ... It's impossible to do it in O(1) time,
>>>>>
>>>>> Compare the last words in those two sentences, and then think about it
>>>>> for a while.
>>>> 
>>>> It is quite clear from his post that he understands the difference.
>>>
>>>Not to me. It read to me like something that was intended to contradict
>>>the previous claim. I've just tried re-reading it on the assumption that
>>>he did understand the difference, and it come across as a complete
>>>non-sequitur. I've seen people post non-sequiturs before, so I'll
>>>concede that it's entirely possible that's what he did.
>>
>> But it's not a non sequitur.  He's elaborating on Willem's comment on
>> Ben's preference for recursion.
>
>Eh?  How did you get that from this thread?  My "readable, elegant,
>correct; pick any two" was facetious.  I can't see how it can be taken
>as a preference for recursion.

Ooops, my bad.  I didn't go all the way back to your post.  Would you
accept "humorous suggestion"?

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

#10660

Screw it.

I really don't care what you guys think, and you guys don't care what
I think. I use underscores. Deal with it. If you want to criticize the
code I wrote, fine. It's vulnerable to stack overflow attacks and has
a lot of overhead. Argue about that.

But don't pull me into a days-long argument about trivial decisions I
make about naming identifiers. It belittles all of us. It's pointless.
What works for me, works for me. What works for you, works for you.

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

#10661

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 10:41:11 -0700, henry eshbaugh wrote:

> Screw it.
> 
> I really don't care what you guys think, and you guys don't care what I
> think. I use underscores. Deal with it. If you want to criticize the
> code I wrote, fine. It's vulnerable to stack overflow attacks and has a
> lot of overhead. Argue about that.
> 
> But don't pull me into a days-long argument about trivial decisions I
> make about naming identifiers. It belittles all of us. It's pointless.
> What works for me, works for me. What works for you, works for you.

They were trying to educate you on namespaces, which happens to be a quite
important subject. Double underscores are just one example of that. On large
projects more elaborate conventions are in use to avoid name-clashes.

An attitude like yours makes it very unlikely that your career as a software
engineer will be very successful. Standards are enforced for a reason, and
it's not just pissing off newbies.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 ________________________________________
/ Yow! I'm imagining a surfer van filled \
\ with soy sauce!                        /
 ----------------------------------------
  \
   \
       ___  
     {~._.~}
      ( Y )
     ()~*~()   
     (_)-(_)   
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

#10663

On 09/21/2011 01:41 PM, henry eshbaugh wrote:
> Screw it.
> 
> I really don't care what you guys think, and you guys don't care what
> I think. I use underscores. Deal with it. If you want to criticize the
> code I wrote, fine. It's vulnerable to stack overflow attacks and has
> a lot of overhead. Argue about that.
> 
> But don't pull me into a days-long argument about trivial decisions I
> make about naming identifiers. It belittles all of us. It's pointless.
> What works for me, works for me. What works for you, works for you.

This leave me curious. Is this a habit of yours - looking for constructs
that have undefined behavior, checking to see whether they work in some
useful fashion on your particular compiler, and if so, deliberately
going out of your way to use them?

I once saw a teenaged boy on a field trip at Griffith Park, in Los
Angeles. He climbed on top of the railing that was intended to protect
him from falling down into a deep ravine. He was trying to find out
whether or not he could retain his balance. If he could, then it was
"obviously" a perfectly safe thing to do; if not -- well, he apparently
hadn't bothered thinking about that issue. He was "right" - he was able
to balance on top of the railing; then he got yelled at by his teacher.
He didn't understand why anyone thought he'd done anything wrong - he
got very resentful. Your attitude toward programming reminds me of him.

I hope there's nobody underneath you when you fall.

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

#10665

On Sep 21, 8:41 pm, henry eshbaugh <henryeshba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> But don't pull me into a days-long argument about trivial decisions I
> make about naming identifiers. It belittles all of us. It's pointless.
> What works for me, works for me. What works for you, works for you.
>
The trivial is important. That's the lesson of software engineering.

Bool breaks libraries. Something as seemingly trivial as how you
choose to represent boolean variables can make a library more trouble
to use than it is worth. Similarly my Fuzzy Logic Trees program
suffers because there is no standard way to generate a NaN. This isn't
part of the core fucntionality of the algorithm at all, it's just in a
stupid CSV file loader. But it means that ypu might have to dive into
the code and fix it to make it compile on ypur particular system, a
major, major disadvantage.
---
Read my books
http://www.malcolmmclean.site11.com/www

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

#10667

Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> On Sep 21, 8:41 pm, henry eshbaugh <henryeshba...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> But don't pull me into a days-long argument about trivial decisions I
>> make about naming identifiers. It belittles all of us. It's pointless.
>> What works for me, works for me. What works for you, works for you.
>>
> The trivial is important. That's the lesson of software engineering.
>
> Bool breaks libraries. Something as seemingly trivial as how you
> choose to represent boolean variables can make a library more trouble
> to use than it is worth.

That's why C99 defines a bool type.

>                          Similarly my Fuzzy Logic Trees program
> suffers because there is no standard way to generate a NaN.

C99's <math.h> defines a macro NAN.

Neither of these solves the problem of supporting pre-C99
implementations, but you can at least use #if to test for
__STDC_VERSION__ >= 199001L (and perhaps eventually phase out the
rest of your maze of #if and #ifdef directives).

-- 
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org  <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
"We must do something.  This is something.  Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

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

#10741

Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes:
> > On Sep 21, 8:41 pm, henry eshbaugh <henryeshba...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> But don't pull me into a days-long argument about trivial decisions I
> >> make about naming identifiers. It belittles all of us. It's pointless.
> >> What works for me, works for me. What works for you, works for you.
> >>
> > The trivial is important. That's the lesson of software engineering.
> >
> > Bool breaks libraries. Something as seemingly trivial as how you
> > choose to represent boolean variables can make a library more trouble
> > to use than it is worth.
> 
> That's why C99 defines a bool type.
> 
> >                          Similarly my Fuzzy Logic Trees program
> > suffers because there is no standard way to generate a NaN.
>
> C99's <math.h> defines a macro NAN.

There's also double nan(const char *) too, but "only if the 
implementation supports quiet NaNs".

However, the only reason I can think of that you would need a NaN is
in sanity checking to make sure you initialised something in a remote
calculation. First blank things with NaN, and shit hits fan if you use
if before it's initialised. But that's at the assert() level of code,
you don't need it in release-quality production code.

By the time you're actually trying to juggle NaNs, you're in
intrinsically platform specific code, as not all platforms support
them, and those that do support them in different ways, I wouldn't
expect there to be a portable way of dealing with them.

Phil
-- 
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."
-- Napoleon

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

#10733

On 2011-09-21, henry eshbaugh <henryeshbaugh@gmail.com> wrote:
> Screw it.

'k.

> I really don't care what you guys think, and you guys don't care what
> I think. I use underscores. Deal with it.

I think I'll deal with it by plonking you.

> But don't pull me into a days-long argument about trivial decisions I
> make about naming identifiers. It belittles all of us. It's pointless.
> What works for me, works for me. What works for you, works for you.

They are only trivial if no one else ever has to deal with your code.

Happily, I expect that anyone with your attitude towards possible improvements
will ensure that.

-s
-- 
Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.

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

#10464

On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 16:56:40 -0700 (PDT), HENRY Eshbaugh
<henryeshbaugh@gmail.com> wrote:

>A recursive function is a lot more readable, plus more elegant.
>
>void reverse_list(ListElement *head)
>{
>        if (head == NULL) return;
>
>        __reverse_list(head->next, head);
>
>        return;
>}
>
>void __reverse_list(ListElement *next, ListElement *this)
>{
>        if (this == NULL) return;
>
>        if (next->next) __reverse_list(next, next->next);
>
>        next->next = this;
>        return;
>}

Where did you acquire this ugly habit of prefixing your functions with
double underscores? The point of reserving double underscore prefixed
names is to avoid name collisions with the internal name space of the
compiler implementation and libraries. You defeat that purpose when
you use them in your application code.

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

#10364

"jacob navia" <jacob@spamsink.net> wrote in message 
news:j4uqda$dqt$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> This group has lost many people. One of the reasons is that the
> newcomers just ask a question or two, and do not see discussions
> that try to explain code, teaching newcomers to the language how
> a program works.

Wishful thinking? The truth is surely that C/C++ are well within the 
black hole now with no chance of escaping its mighty pull.

[snipped "foundations of data structures and algorithms" stuff]

How is "foundations of data structures and algorithms" (via YOUR library, 
no less) on topic? Are you not tryig to commandiere this NG to your 
personal agenda? Should all library vendors start posting examples in 
here about usage of their products? See the point?

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

#10381

Le 17/09/11 02:37, Tony a écrit :
> "jacob navia"<jacob@spamsink.net>  wrote in message
> news:j4uqda$dqt$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>> This group has lost many people. One of the reasons is that the
>> newcomers just ask a question or two, and do not see discussions
>> that try to explain code, teaching newcomers to the language how
>> a program works.
>
> Wishful thinking?

No.

> The truth is surely that C/C++ are well within the
> black hole now with no chance of escaping its mighty pull.
>

It is you that are in that black hole.
Proof: You see everything as doomed and the future is black ...

:-)

> [snipped "foundations of data structures and algorithms" stuff]
>

> How is "foundations of data structures and algorithms" (via YOUR library,
> no less) on topic?

Because I say so. You do not like it?
Don't read my posts.

And pleeeeze, since C/C++ are in the black hole as
you say, there is no point in discussing anything here.

Just go away.


> Are you not tryig to commandiere this NG to your
> personal agenda?

Yes, I have a vested interest in reversing linked lists. Each
time somebody reverses a list I earn money you know?


> Should all library vendors start posting examples in
> here about usage of their products?

Yes, I am sure that Microsoft will come here to put ads
for C#

See the point?

Yes. You are a troll that doesn't like C and post stuff here
just to inflate your own ego.

C/C++ (whatever that is) is obsolete?

OK, then there is no point in discussing software in "C/C++".
GO AWAY.

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

#10385

"jacob navia" <jacob@spamsink.net> wrote in message 
news:j51cit$583$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> Le 17/09/11 02:37, Tony a écrit :
>> "jacob navia"<jacob@spamsink.net>  wrote in message
>> news:j4uqda$dqt$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>>> This group has lost many people. One of the reasons is that the
>>> newcomers just ask a question or two, and do not see discussions
>>> that try to explain code, teaching newcomers to the language how
>>> a program works.
>>
>> Wishful thinking?
>
> No.

What are the statistics? How many new C programmers are there each year? 
Is the total number of C programmers increasing or decreasing?

>
>> The truth is surely that C/C++ are well within the
>> black hole now with no chance of escaping its mighty pull.
>>
>
> It is you that are in that black hole.
> Proof: You see everything as doomed and the future is black ...
>
> :-)

When did C and C++ become "everything"? Did you mean that C/C++ means 
everything to you?

>
>> [snipped "foundations of data structures and algorithms" stuff]
>>
>
>> How is "foundations of data structures and algorithms" (via YOUR 
>> library,
>> no less) on topic?
>
> Because I say so. You do not like it?
> Don't read my posts.

For the most part, I don't. The lead-in was semi-interesting, and the 
rest I considered doldrum, off-topic and agenda-ish. After 1000 years of 
C or whatever, now there's nothing better to talk about than "elementary 
data structure principles in C" and your personal container project? 
There are project websites for stuff like that you know, and for a 
reason. Think about it: your project can have it's own little exclusive 
home on the web somewhere where all talk can be of nothing but it 24x7.

>
> And pleeeeze, since C/C++ are in the black hole as
> you say, there is no point in discussing anything here.
>
> Just go away.
>

No need to get all snipey. Geez.

>
>> Are you not tryig to commandiere this NG to your
>> personal agenda?
>
> Yes, I have a vested interest in reversing linked lists. Each
> time somebody reverses a list I earn money you know?

There is a NG called comp.programming you know. Probably one on 
algorithms and data structures too.

>
>> Should all library vendors start posting examples in
>> here about usage of their products?
>
> Yes, I am sure that Microsoft will come here to put ads
> for C#

My bad. I meant every joe coder with his endeavors in trying to 
understand linked lists for the first time. How is such elementary 
endeavoring apt to attract C programmers or anyone who is ("foolishly", 
hehe) learning C? C's supposed to be so mature and capable of very 
sophisticated low-level tasks but its NG is about struggling with 
linked-list concepts? It makes it seem like the once verile C is now 
decrepit and back in diapers. How about some respect as it gets sucked 
into the black hole to oblivion.

>
> See the point?
>
> Yes. You are a troll that doesn't like C and post stuff here
> just to inflate your own ego.
>
> C/C++ (whatever that is) is obsolete?

Yes, of course they are, but the transitionary period length is unknown 
at this time, though preparation and some moves have already begun.

>
> OK, then there is no point in discussing software in "C/C++".
> GO AWAY.
>

Oh, ha, ha, ha. You jokester you! 

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

#10386

On 09/17/11 07:09 PM, Tony wrote:
> "jacob navia"<jacob@spamsink.net>  wrote in message
> news:j51cit$583$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>> Le 17/09/11 02:37, Tony a écrit :
>>> "jacob navia"<jacob@spamsink.net>   wrote in message
>>> news:j4uqda$dqt$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>> This group has lost many people. One of the reasons is that the
>>>> newcomers just ask a question or two, and do not see discussions
>>>> that try to explain code, teaching newcomers to the language how
>>>> a program works.
>>>
>>> Wishful thinking?
>>
>> No.
>
> What are the statistics? How many new C programmers are there each year?
> Is the total number of C programmers increasing or decreasing?

They are certainly increasing in my part of the world.  As long as the 
demand for embedded devices keeps growing, so will the demand for C and 
C++ programmers.

-- 
Ian Collins

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

#10388

"Ian Collins" <ian-news@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:9dj0tiFr5dU4@mid.individual.net...
> On 09/17/11 07:09 PM, Tony wrote:
>> "jacob navia"<jacob@spamsink.net>  wrote in message
>> news:j51cit$583$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>>> Le 17/09/11 02:37, Tony a écrit :
>>>> "jacob navia"<jacob@spamsink.net>   wrote in message
>>>> news:j4uqda$dqt$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>>>>> This group has lost many people. One of the reasons is that the
>>>>> newcomers just ask a question or two, and do not see discussions
>>>>> that try to explain code, teaching newcomers to the language how
>>>>> a program works.
>>>>
>>>> Wishful thinking?
>>>
>>> No.
>>
>> What are the statistics? How many new C programmers are there each 
>> year?
>> Is the total number of C programmers increasing or decreasing?
>
> They are certainly increasing in my part of the world.  As long as the 
> demand for embedded devices keeps growing, so will the demand for C and 
> C++ programmers.
>

I could believe that. That would mean that the exodus from C/C++ for 
other than systems-level work has come close to the end and now that one 
category is seeing an increase. It would be very interesting to see 
graphs of the number of users of various programming languages over a 
long period of time, say from the 80's to now. If anyone has a link to 
such info, please don't keep it a secret! 

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

#10408 — Programming languages

Le 17/09/11 09:09, Tony a écrit :
> What are the statistics?
 > How many new C programmers are there each year?
> Is the total number of C programmers increasing or decreasing?
>

1) Here you acknowledge that you have absolutely NO DATA for your
   assertion that C is in a "black hole" and in complete decline.

2) If you take a random statistical programming language rating like
   (for instance) the TIOBE rating at

http://www.tiobe.com/index.php/content/paperinfo/tpci/index.html

   that has been running for years you will see that the order is
   more like:


Pos.   Pos. Programming
Sep11  Sep10 Language 	Ratings   Delta

1       1     Java      18.761%   +0.85%
2       2     C         18.002%	  +0.86%
3       3     C++       8.849%    -0.96%
4       6     C#        6.819%    +1.80%

All other programming languages come AFTER those.

If you look at the long term history of that rating
(further down that page) you will see has held that
position for MANY YEARS.

OK?

Next time, before you make those blanket statements turn on
your brain before writing anything.

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

#10424 — Re: Programming languages

jacob navia wrote:
> Le 17/09/11 09:09, Tony a écrit :
>> What are the statistics?
>> How many new C programmers are there each year?
>> Is the total number of C programmers increasing or decreasing?
>>
>
> 1) Here you acknowledge

BITCH, you tell what "I acknowlege" on more time, .. you don't want to 
war with me.

> that you have absolutely NO DATA

I challenged you to do what?

>  for your
>   assertion that C is in a "black hole"

It is.

> and in complete decline.

I didn't say that.

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

#10425 — Re: Programming languages

Le 18/09/11 07:11, Tony a écrit :
> jacob navia wrote:
>> Le 17/09/11 09:09, Tony a écrit :
>>> What are the statistics?
>>> How many new C programmers are there each year?
>>> Is the total number of C programmers increasing or decreasing?
>>>
>>
>> 1) Here you acknowledge
>
> BITCH, you tell what "I acknowlege" on more time, .. you don't want to
> war with me.
>
>> that you have absolutely NO DATA
>
> I challenged you to do what?
>
>>   for your
>>    assertion that C is in a "black hole"
>
> It is.
>
>> and in complete decline.
>
> I didn't say that.
>
>
>
You said:
<quote>
The truth is surely that C/C++ are well within the
black hole now with no chance of escaping its mighty pull.
<end quote>

And I see that you snipped the data I presented to substantiate my
claim:

C is today a very popular programming langage.

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

#10427 — Re: Programming languages

On 2011-09-18, Tony <nospamme@ever.net> wrote:
> BITCH, you tell what "I acknowlege" on more time, .. you don't want to 
> war with me.

I suspect you'll find that he does, for the following reasons:
1.  He's sometimes pretty ready to take up an offered fight.
2.  He's not dumb enough to be scared of Internet tough guys.

BTW: *plonk*

-s
-- 
Copyright 2011, all wrongs reversed.  Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.

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

Page 6 of 7 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7  Next page →

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

csiph-web