Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #106814 > unrolled thread
| Started by | acidlategamer@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-03-23 09:56 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-03-23 19:02 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 213 — 32 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault acidlategamer@gmail.com - 2017-03-23 09:56 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 18:04 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-23 17:07 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault acidlategamer@gmail.com - 2017-03-23 10:36 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault acidlategamer@gmail.com - 2017-03-23 10:42 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 18:52 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-03-23 12:54 -0600
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 00:02 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-03-23 17:16 -0600
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 00:32 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-03-23 11:57 -0600
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault acidlategamer@gmail.com - 2017-03-23 11:23 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-03-23 12:53 -0600
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-23 19:00 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-23 15:59 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-23 20:40 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-23 22:06 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-23 20:43 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-24 14:09 +1300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-23 21:28 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-24 14:33 +1300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 09:23 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-25 08:39 +1300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 20:40 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-03-23 19:48 -0600
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 13:32 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 20:42 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-17 06:30 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-03-23 19:29 -0600
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-24 10:10 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 09:26 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-24 13:52 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 10:30 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-24 14:37 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 12:51 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-24 18:05 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 15:09 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 12:55 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-03-24 09:45 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 12:52 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-03-24 10:10 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-24 18:48 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-24 14:04 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-24 19:16 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-24 15:10 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-24 15:17 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-25 00:49 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-24 21:10 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-25 02:37 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-24 21:45 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-03-25 15:58 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-24 12:44 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-24 12:07 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-25 00:54 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-03-25 10:16 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-25 12:32 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-25 15:17 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-25 16:32 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-25 10:15 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-25 14:07 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-25 18:23 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-03-25 18:48 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 23:22 +0300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-03-25 20:47 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2017-03-26 15:56 +0300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-03-26 18:13 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-26 17:03 +0200
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-25 21:16 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-03-25 21:28 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-25 19:16 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-26 08:53 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-26 02:39 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2017-03-26 11:54 +0200
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-26 22:57 +1300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-27 08:18 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-03-26 11:37 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-27 08:19 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-03-27 21:53 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-27 16:22 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-27 08:18 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-27 08:49 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-27 16:57 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 18:19 +0200
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-27 17:47 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-27 09:27 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-27 17:56 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2017-04-01 12:42 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-27 09:36 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-27 17:51 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-27 13:59 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-27 19:00 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-27 15:13 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-27 20:05 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-03-27 13:14 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-03-27 21:28 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-27 16:21 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-28 13:44 +1300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-28 08:39 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-03 17:36 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-03 14:02 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-14 11:24 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-04-14 18:39 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-14 14:38 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-22 21:06 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-04-23 17:38 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2017-04-14 13:54 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-14 14:36 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-16 19:08 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-26 17:11 +0200
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-27 08:23 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-27 10:27 +0200
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-27 10:22 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-27 15:01 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-27 18:19 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-27 12:37 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-27 15:40 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-27 21:28 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-27 22:27 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-27 23:37 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-28 08:33 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-28 11:21 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-28 15:38 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault jm.bourguet@gmail.com - 2017-03-28 09:03 -0700
Re: Readabilty of "3 == x" (was: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-28 09:20 -0700
Re: Readabilty of "3 == x" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-28 18:55 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-28 18:49 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-28 14:53 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-28 15:19 -0500
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-02 12:49 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-04-03 17:19 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-04-03 21:44 +0200
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-04-03 15:05 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-04-04 01:19 +0200
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-04 00:49 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-04-03 18:22 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-04-04 06:38 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-29 00:16 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-29 00:26 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Alla <vitale.alla@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 12:34 +0300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-28 13:28 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-03-28 07:04 -0600
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-28 14:38 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-28 10:55 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault jadill33@gmail.com - 2017-03-28 07:27 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-28 07:58 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-28 16:13 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Alla <vitale.alla@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 18:49 +0300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-28 09:15 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-28 18:53 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-28 18:12 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-28 11:51 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-28 19:59 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Alla <vitale.alla@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 23:11 +0300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Alla <vitale.alla@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 17:20 +0300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-01 08:58 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 18:41 +0200
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-01 11:37 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Alla <vitale.alla@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 22:43 +0300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-03 08:47 +0200
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-26 07:58 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-03-25 19:35 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-03-25 21:37 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-26 08:39 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-03-25 21:21 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-03-25 16:54 -0500
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-03-25 22:32 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-26 13:46 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-03 17:39 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-03 11:42 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-03 12:10 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-03 15:22 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-05 11:01 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-26 08:45 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-26 02:35 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-26 17:19 +0200
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-27 08:15 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 15:12 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-25 08:41 +1300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-03-24 16:27 -0600
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-24 21:36 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 20:44 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-25 14:46 +1300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-24 11:24 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-24 13:52 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-24 13:55 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 10:31 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-24 14:39 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 12:54 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2017-03-23 21:56 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-23 15:18 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-03-23 16:39 -0600
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-23 20:42 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-03-23 16:33 -0600
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-23 20:45 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-24 10:01 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 09:27 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-24 13:53 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 10:32 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-24 14:42 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 12:56 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-24 08:45 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2017-03-23 21:14 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-03-23 11:52 -0600
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault acidlategamer@gmail.com - 2017-03-23 11:03 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault acidlategamer@gmail.com - 2017-03-23 11:14 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-03-23 12:41 -0600
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-23 11:48 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault acidlategamer@gmail.com - 2017-03-23 11:59 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-23 12:35 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault acidlategamer@gmail.com - 2017-03-23 12:48 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-23 13:24 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-23 20:46 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2017-03-23 19:02 -0700
Page 8 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 Next page →
| From | Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 07:04 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <1bvaqt7dsv.fsf@pfeifferfamily.net> |
| In reply to | #107255 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > On 28/03/17 10:34, Alla wrote: > <snip> > >> But again both approaches carry the same logical value, and none is the >> only correct approach. Hence there is no point of argument here. > > It is precisely because both approaches are correct that we are > arguing about them. If one approach or the other were /in/correct, one > side could simply point at the Standard and say "see?" and the other > side would say "oh, good point", and that would be the end of the > matter. "You can read the standard, but you don't *understand* it..."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 14:38 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <obdos0$jdt$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107257 |
On 28/03/17 14:04, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > >> On 28/03/17 10:34, Alla wrote: >> <snip> >> >>> But again both approaches carry the same logical value, and none is the >>> only correct approach. Hence there is no point of argument here. >> >> It is precisely because both approaches are correct that we are >> arguing about them. If one approach or the other were /in/correct, one >> side could simply point at the Standard and say "see?" and the other >> side would say "oh, good point", and that would be the end of the >> matter. > > "You can read the standard, but you don't *understand* it..." Ah, good point. Okay, that would be the end of the matter modulo the trolls. -- 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 | 2017-03-28 10:55 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <obdtaq$3bl$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #107257 |
On 3/28/2017 9:04 AM, Joe Pfeiffer wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > >> On 28/03/17 10:34, Alla wrote: >> <snip> >> >>> But again both approaches carry the same logical value, and none is the >>> only correct approach. Hence there is no point of argument here. >> >> It is precisely because both approaches are correct that we are >> arguing about them. If one approach or the other were /in/correct, one >> side could simply point at the Standard and say "see?" and the other >> side would say "oh, good point", and that would be the end of the >> matter. > > "You can read the standard, but you don't *understand* it..." > Joe, I think you'll find that is pretty common from the regular posters in this newsgroup (although they will argue otherwise and call you a troll for suggesting it). -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jadill33@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 07:27 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <eb36ef91-3651-47d7-bdcf-ea7d3150ee20@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #107255 |
On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 8:28:41 AM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 28/03/17 10:34, Alla wrote: > <snip> > > > But again both approaches carry the same logical value, and none is the > > only correct approach. Hence there is no point of argument here. > > It is precisely because both approaches are correct that we are arguing > about them. If one approach or the other were /in/correct, one side > could simply point at the Standard and say "see?" and the other side > would say "oh, good point", and that would be the end of the matter. n1570 - 6.5.3.3 pt 5 Granted, scanning through all instances of "==" in the draft are remarkably in favor of constants on the right. Obviously, a DR is required to fix that to conform the standard to the one true expression style. Best regards, John D.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 07:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lny3vp5tyw.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #107261 |
jadill33@gmail.com writes:
> On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 8:28:41 AM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 28/03/17 10:34, Alla wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>> > But again both approaches carry the same logical value, and none is the
>> > only correct approach. Hence there is no point of argument here.
>>
>> It is precisely because both approaches are correct that we are arguing
>> about them. If one approach or the other were /in/correct, one side
>> could simply point at the Standard and say "see?" and the other side
>> would say "oh, good point", and that would be the end of the matter.
>
> n1570 - 6.5.3.3 pt 5
>
> Granted, scanning through all instances of "==" in the draft are remarkably
> in favor of constants on the right. Obviously, a DR is required to fix that
> to conform the standard to the one true expression style.
Interesting. The relevant sentence in that paragraph is:
The expression !E is equivalent to (0==E).
I can't think of a good reason to write it that way rather than (E==0).
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 16:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <obdudj$703$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107263 |
On 28/03/17 15:58, Keith Thompson wrote: > jadill33@gmail.com writes: >> On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 8:28:41 AM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 28/03/17 10:34, Alla wrote: >>> <snip> >>> >>>> But again both approaches carry the same logical value, and none is the >>>> only correct approach. Hence there is no point of argument here. >>> >>> It is precisely because both approaches are correct that we are arguing >>> about them. If one approach or the other were /in/correct, one side >>> could simply point at the Standard and say "see?" and the other side >>> would say "oh, good point", and that would be the end of the matter. >> >> n1570 - 6.5.3.3 pt 5 >> >> Granted, scanning through all instances of "==" in the draft are remarkably >> in favor of constants on the right. Obviously, a DR is required to fix that >> to conform the standard to the one true expression style. > > Interesting. The relevant sentence in that paragraph is: > > The expression !E is equivalent to (0==E). > > I can't think of a good reason to write it that way rather than (E==0). (Other than the obvious one, of course!) Here's a try at /another/ good reason. It keeps E on the right of the expression, reinforcing the parallel with !E. (I'm not saying it's a great reason! But it might just sneak over the "good" bar.) -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alla <vitale.alla@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 18:49 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <obe0js$ffn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107255 |
On 3/28/17 15:28, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 28/03/17 10:34, Alla wrote: > <snip> > >> But again both approaches carry the same logical value, and none is the >> only correct approach. Hence there is no point of argument here. > > It is precisely because both approaches are correct that we are arguing > about them. I thought so - it's called for the sake of arguing :-) And I see that it goes on and on and on... :-) I explained a pure obvious concept behind the issue of why one approach is treated as jarring by many compared to the more conventional one, but I see that it's not interesting as it doesn't provoke further arguing :-) All right. Have fun. :-) If one approach or the other were /in/correct, one side > could simply point at the Standard and say "see?" and the other side > would say "oh, good point", and that would be the end of the matter. > Respectfully, Alla
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 09:15 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnpoh15qet.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #107273 |
Alla <vitale.alla@gmail.com> writes:
> On 3/28/17 15:28, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 28/03/17 10:34, Alla wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>> But again both approaches carry the same logical value, and none is the
>>> only correct approach. Hence there is no point of argument here.
>>
>> It is precisely because both approaches are correct that we are arguing
>> about them.
>
> I thought so - it's called for the sake of arguing :-)
[...]
Not at all. It's arguing because we have a genuine difference of
opinion, and each side is trying to understand the other side's point of
view. The fact that the disagreement isn't about technical correctness
is a fairly minor point.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 18:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <obe7ob$8kb$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107275 |
On 28/03/17 17:15, Keith Thompson wrote: > Alla <vitale.alla@gmail.com> writes: >> On 3/28/17 15:28, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 28/03/17 10:34, Alla wrote: >>> <snip> >>> >>>> But again both approaches carry the same logical value, and none is the >>>> only correct approach. Hence there is no point of argument here. >>> >>> It is precisely because both approaches are correct that we are arguing >>> about them. >> >> I thought so - it's called for the sake of arguing :-) > [...] > > Not at all. It's arguing because we have a genuine difference of > opinion, and each side is trying to understand the other side's point of > view. The fact that the disagreement isn't about technical correctness > is a fairly minor point. Agreed (although if it /were/ about technical correctness we'd be finished by now). I am trying hard to understand why people object to constant-on-the-left, and so far I'm failing... but I'm still trying. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 18:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <QHxCA.237714$IM7.209610@fx39.iad> |
| In reply to | #107286 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >On 28/03/17 17:15, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Alla <vitale.alla@gmail.com> writes: >>> On 3/28/17 15:28, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> On 28/03/17 10:34, Alla wrote: >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>> But again both approaches carry the same logical value, and none is the >>>>> only correct approach. Hence there is no point of argument here. >>>> >>>> It is precisely because both approaches are correct that we are arguing >>>> about them. >>> >>> I thought so - it's called for the sake of arguing :-) >> [...] >> >> Not at all. It's arguing because we have a genuine difference of >> opinion, and each side is trying to understand the other side's point of >> view. The fact that the disagreement isn't about technical correctness >> is a fairly minor point. > >Agreed (although if it /were/ about technical correctness we'd be >finished by now). > >I am trying hard to understand why people object to >constant-on-the-left, and so far I'm failing... but I'm still trying. Given that "visually jarring" is in the eye of the beholder, I suspect your quest to understand will be fruitless.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 11:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln1sth5j6j.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #107286 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> On 28/03/17 17:15, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Alla <vitale.alla@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 3/28/17 15:28, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 28/03/17 10:34, Alla wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> But again both approaches carry the same logical value, and none is the
>>>>> only correct approach. Hence there is no point of argument here.
>>>>
>>>> It is precisely because both approaches are correct that we are arguing
>>>> about them.
>>>
>>> I thought so - it's called for the sake of arguing :-)
>> [...]
>>
>> Not at all. It's arguing because we have a genuine difference of
>> opinion, and each side is trying to understand the other side's point of
>> view. The fact that the disagreement isn't about technical correctness
>> is a fairly minor point.
>
> Agreed (although if it /were/ about technical correctness we'd be
> finished by now).
>
> I am trying hard to understand why people object to
> constant-on-the-left, and so far I'm failing... but I'm still trying.
Let me ask you a question. This won't resolve the issue, but it
might result in some small progress.
Suppose C had been designed a little differently, so that the
assignment operator is ":=", the equality operator is "==", and a
single "=" is a syntax error. The rest of the language is left as
it is.
I think you'd agree that there would then be little or no danger
of confusing assignment vs. equality; something like `if (x := 3)`
would not be confused with `if (x == 3)`. (If you don't agree,
then please assume it for the sake of argument, or feel free to
suggest a different pair of symbols.)
Granting that you would not find `if (3 == x)` problematic, would you
ever *write* `if (3 == x)` in such a language? And how surprised
would you be to see `if (3 == x)` rather than `if (x == 3)` in
someone else's code? (Surprised in the sense of "hmm", not "ick".)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 19:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <obeblq$ni5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107301 |
On 28/03/17 19:51, Keith Thompson wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: <snip> >> I am trying hard to understand why people object to >> constant-on-the-left, and so far I'm failing... but I'm still trying. > > Let me ask you a question. This won't resolve the issue, but it > might result in some small progress. > > Suppose C had been designed a little differently, so that the > assignment operator is ":=", the equality operator is "==", and a > single "=" is a syntax error. The rest of the language is left as > it is. Yes, I see where you're going, but I'm afraid it's a no-through-road. > I think you'd agree that there would then be little or no danger > of confusing assignment vs. equality; something like `if (x := 3)` > would not be confused with `if (x == 3)`. (If you don't agree, > then please assume it for the sake of argument, or feel free to > suggest a different pair of symbols.) I can live with those. > Granting that you would not find `if (3 == x)` problematic, would you > ever *write* `if (3 == x)` in such a language? It's a hypothetical, so of course I can't be sure what I would have done if C had been designed that way. But I certainly see no reason to avoid writing it with the constant on the left (except that I hope I would never actually have a hard-coded 3 in the code, but that is of course a separate issue). Whether I'd write it that way or the other way might well depend on what other comparisons I was doing. > And how surprised > would you be to see `if (3 == x)` rather than `if (x == 3)` in > someone else's code? (Surprised in the sense of "hmm", not "ick".) No more surprised than if I'd seen 3 * x rather than x * 3 (and, by the way, 3 * x is for some people a very natural way to write a coefficient of x). -- 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 | Alla <vitale.alla@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-28 23:11 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <obeg0g$74m$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107286 |
On 3/28/17 20:53, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 28/03/17 17:15, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Alla <vitale.alla@gmail.com> writes: >>> On 3/28/17 15:28, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> On 28/03/17 10:34, Alla wrote: >>>> <snip> >>>> >>>>> But again both approaches carry the same logical value, and none is >>>>> the >>>>> only correct approach. Hence there is no point of argument here. >>>> >>>> It is precisely because both approaches are correct that we are arguing >>>> about them. >>> >>> I thought so - it's called for the sake of arguing :-) >> [...] >> >> Not at all. It's arguing because we have a genuine difference of >> opinion, and each side is trying to understand the other side's point of >> view. The fact that the disagreement isn't about technical correctness >> is a fairly minor point. > > Agreed (although if it /were/ about technical correctness we'd be > finished by now). > > I am trying hard to understand why people object to > constant-on-the-left, and so far I'm failing... but I'm still trying. > In my pre-previous post I have precisely explained the causal nexus. I don't see what's not clear in my explanation. In short, X == 3 is more "usual" for the majority because the question is about the value of x, not 3; 3 is constant, while x is not. Oh dear! :-) Is this contagious, and I am now being also drawn into this? Oh no :-) It's not C specific, so I better go looking at some C related discussions. Respectfully, Alla
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Alla <vitale.alla@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-01 17:20 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <obocus$2g8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107275 |
On 3/28/17 19:15, Keith Thompson wrote: > Alla <vitale.alla@gmail.com> writes: >> On 3/28/17 15:28, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 28/03/17 10:34, Alla wrote: >>> <snip> >>> >>>> But again both approaches carry the same logical value, and none is the >>>> only correct approach. Hence there is no point of argument here. >>> >>> It is precisely because both approaches are correct that we are arguing >>> about them. >> >> I thought so - it's called for the sake of arguing :-) > [...] > > Not at all. It's arguing because we have a genuine difference of > opinion, and each side is trying to understand the other side's point of > view. The fact that the disagreement isn't about technical correctness > is a fairly minor point. > Upon a short conversation with one of my friends today, I have recalled my interference into this discussion, and have understood how wrong I was. Indeed, I sounded like that "practical" gardener from the classic historical scholastic anecdote. Sitting on a bench in a monastery's garden, Thomas Aquinas and Albertus Magnus were trying to find an answer to a question whether a mole has eyes. So, they were sitting there, discussing this matter from different angles, during hours: mole can see because it does move around and reaches certain places it wants to reach; no, mole cannot see; all right, but it should see; and round, and round they went. The passing by gardener heard this discourse, and said: "What are you, fellows, arguing about? Let me bring you the living mole, there are a lot of those creatures here, and you'll see if it has eyes or not." And both arguing philosophers replied: "Oh, no, we don't need a living mole; we know you can bring a lot of those. We need the mole *in principle*. We are interested in how this *mole in principle* can act, and how we can argue, namely, discuss the matter" (meaning that their intention was to stop and see the matter, not with their eyes, of course, but with their minds, and on different levels of such vision). This was my long way of saying I am genuinely sorry for my inadequate interference. I will forebear from such comments in future. -- Respectfully, Alla
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-01 08:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <75de181a-4151-4365-b442-6fec66e15f1b@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #107579 |
On Saturday, April 1, 2017 at 9:23:30 AM UTC-5, Alla wrote: > And both arguing philosophers replied: "Oh, no, we don't need a > living mole; we know you can bring a lot of those. We need the mole *in > principle*. We are interested in how this *mole in principle* can act, > and how we can argue, namely, discuss the matter" (meaning that their > intention was to stop and see the matter, not with their eyes, of > course, but with their minds, and on different levels of such vision). > This was my long way of saying I am genuinely sorry for my inadequate > interference. I will forebear from such comments in future. If some people find a certain construct easier to read than another, there may be value in trying to ascertain whether there is some underlying reason for that difference, since discovery of an underlying reason may allow one to predict what other constructs would be found more or less readable. On the other hand, if some people find a the first construct more readable, almost nobody finds it less readable, the fact that some people find it more readable should be an adequate reason to favor it except in cases where the latter might have some articulable advantage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-01 18:41 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <20170401184118.8297df03e98eb7ae37b21765@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #107583 |
On Sat, 1 Apr 2017 08:58:59 -0700 (PDT) supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: > On the other hand, if some people find a the first construct more readable, > almost nobody finds it less readable, the fact that some people find it more > readable should be an adequate reason to favor it except in cases where the > latter might have some articulable advantage. Some people like to shag flies because they don't have been gifted by the nature to get bigger animals. It is sad when they start to believe they can get any kind of animal. :o)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-01 11:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnshls2cul.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #107579 |
Alla <vitale.alla@gmail.com> writes:
> On 3/28/17 19:15, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> Alla <vitale.alla@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 3/28/17 15:28, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 28/03/17 10:34, Alla wrote:
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> But again both approaches carry the same logical value, and none is the
>>>>> only correct approach. Hence there is no point of argument here.
>>>>
>>>> It is precisely because both approaches are correct that we are arguing
>>>> about them.
>>>
>>> I thought so - it's called for the sake of arguing :-)
>> [...]
>>
>> Not at all. It's arguing because we have a genuine difference of
>> opinion, and each side is trying to understand the other side's point of
>> view. The fact that the disagreement isn't about technical correctness
>> is a fairly minor point.
>
> Upon a short conversation with one of my friends today, I have recalled
> my interference into this discussion, and have understood how wrong I
> was.
[snip]
> This was my long way of saying I am genuinely sorry for my inadequate
> interference. I will forebear from such comments in future.
I don't understand what you're apologizing for. You have as much right
to participate in the discussion as anyone else.
--
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 | Alla <vitale.alla@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-02 22:43 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <obrk7n$mtv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107592 |
On 4/1/17 21:37, Keith Thompson wrote: > Alla <vitale.alla@gmail.com> writes: >> On 3/28/17 19:15, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> Alla <vitale.alla@gmail.com> writes: >>>> On 3/28/17 15:28, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>> On 28/03/17 10:34, Alla wrote: >>>>> <snip> >>>>> >>>>>> But again both approaches carry the same logical value, and none is the >>>>>> only correct approach. Hence there is no point of argument here. >>>>> >>>>> It is precisely because both approaches are correct that we are arguing >>>>> about them. >>>> >>>> I thought so - it's called for the sake of arguing :-) >>> [...] >>> >>> Not at all. It's arguing because we have a genuine difference of >>> opinion, and each side is trying to understand the other side's point of >>> view. The fact that the disagreement isn't about technical correctness >>> is a fairly minor point. >> >> Upon a short conversation with one of my friends today, I have recalled >> my interference into this discussion, and have understood how wrong I >> was. > [snip] >> This was my long way of saying I am genuinely sorry for my inadequate >> interference. I will forebear from such comments in future. > > I don't understand what you're apologizing for. You have as much right > to participate in the discussion as anyone else. > "Politically" yes, but allow me to answer you with another historical anecdote, a Chinese one, a shortened narrative of it: A young man was named a Master (like Schoolmaster), and, as a Master, got his own students. One day he decided to visit his own old Master, who taught him everything the young man knew. Being very excited to see his Master and now being a Master himself, he was delighted to be able to talk to his Master as an equal. When he arrived, the old Master met him and invited to have a few cups of tea. Upon few insignificant questions, the old Master asked his former student: "I see you have brought an umbrella. Is it raining?". "Yes", responded the newly appointed Master. "Please, tell me at which side of your shoes, left or right, did you place your umbrella before entering this room?", asked the old Master with genuine curiosity. A pause followed, an awkward one at that - the young Master did not remember. He got up, bowed to his old Master, and said that he understood everything and went out. Actually this anecdote describes the importance of being conscious about every single detail in one's actions, but also the significance of a realistic self assessment. My current knowledge doesn't allow me to contribute meaningful ideas to any discussions here. I can only ask questions, and continue learning from you. :-) (PS: Keith, apologies for sending initially in PM mode; unintentionally pushed a wrong button yet again.) -- Respectfully, Alla
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-03 08:47 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <obsr0s$bgv$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107653 |
On 02/04/17 21:43, Alla wrote: > On 4/1/17 21:37, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Alla <vitale.alla@gmail.com> writes: <snip> >>> This was my long way of saying I am genuinely sorry for my inadequate >>> interference. I will forebear from such comments in future. >> >> I don't understand what you're apologizing for. You have as much right >> to participate in the discussion as anyone else. >> > > "Politically" yes, but allow me to answer you with another historical > anecdote, a Chinese one, a shortened narrative of it: > > A young man was named a Master (like Schoolmaster), and, as a Master, > got his own students. One day he decided to visit his own old Master, > who taught him everything the young man knew. Being very excited to see > his Master and now being a Master himself, he was delighted to be able > to talk to his Master as an equal. When he arrived, the old Master met > him and invited to have a few cups of tea. Upon few insignificant > questions, the old Master asked his former student: "I see you have > brought an umbrella. Is it raining?". "Yes", responded the newly > appointed Master. "Please, tell me at which side of your shoes, left or > right, did you place your umbrella before entering this room?", asked > the old Master with genuine curiosity. A pause followed, an awkward one > at that - the young Master did not remember. He got up, bowed to his old > Master, and said that he understood everything and went out. > > Actually this anecdote describes the importance of being conscious about > every single detail in one's actions, but also the significance of a > realistic self assessment. My current knowledge doesn't allow me to > contribute meaningful ideas to any discussions here. I can only ask > questions, and continue learning from you. :-) > I'd say that anecdote shows that some people are more concerned with pointless and irrelevant details, rather than the big picture. This newsgroup sometimes suffers too much from people who worry or argue about the best position of the shoes relative to their umbrellas, and has too few who simply want to know if it is raining or not, or if an umbrella is a good idea.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-04-26 07:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfn4lxb5i7b.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #107217 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
> On 27/03/17 21:28, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>>
>>> On 27/03/17 16:01, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> Which of these is easier?
>>>>>
>>>>> if(x == y)
>>>>> if(y == x)
>>>>
>>>> Given that neither expression includes an integer constant,
>>>> methink you're moving the goalposts.
>>>
>>> I'd be very surprised to hear that people find integer constants
>>> harder to read than other identifiers.
>>
>> Having moved the goalposts you are now begging the question!
>
> No, I don't think so (on either charge). People aren't saying "3" is
> hard to read. They are saying "3==x" is harder to read than
> "x==3". What I'm curious to know is /why/.
Let me see if I can shed some light on this question.
Years before I did any programming, I started doing mathematics
more advanced than arithmetic (eg, algebra). My education in
these areas, and my (unconsciously adopted) habit in working
exercises, customarily put the unknown on the left, or would work
towards that, while reducing the right hand side so eventually
there would be a single unknown on the left and only known
quantities on the right. In mathematics not all of the so-called
known quantities are necessarily constants, eg, for solving a
quadratic equation, we would arrive at
x = ( -b +/- sqrt( b*b - 4*a*c ) ) / (2*a)
where it is understood that a, b, and c are "given" and we want
to find a value for x. Similarly for derivations involving
mathematical constants like pi and e, even though they are
constants, it's common to treat them as "unknown" so an
equation can be derived to give their value, such as the
well-known equation for e
e = SUM for k from 0 to infinity of 1 / k!
Needless to say, after years of habit of putting the unknown on
the left, this habit carried over into programming. I think it
goes without saying that the habit is arbitrary; I could just as
well have developed the habit of putting the unknown on the
right, and textbooks could have been written that way, and if
that had happened then surely I would have chosen that convention
in my programming. But I got the habit that I got, and naturally
that carried over into programming.
Here I might interject that this preference is learned by most
people, at least those whose language is written left-to-right.
Disclaimer: AFAIAA. (I have no experience with mathematics or
programming in other-than-left-to-right languages.)
Returning to the original question, can I read both 'x==3'
and '3==x'? The answer is of course I can, but I don't read them
the same way, or I might say the two readings happen in different
parts of my brain. When I read 'x==3', I read it "without
thinking", by which I mean on sort of an intellectual autopilot.
When I read '3==x', the autopilot turns on a warning light that
says, "hmm, we have some unfamiliar conditions here, please take
a look", at which point the intellectual pilot takes over, and
says, "Oh yes, that's the same as 'x==3', I can deal with that,"
and the reading "plane" keeps flying along.
It's easy to find other examples of different ways of writing
code that are equivalent semantically but not equivalent in terms
of readers' perceptions. For example, should 'default:' go as
the last case of a switch() statement, or the first case (or
perhaps in the middle)? Or another one, if we have a loop where
the last portion of it is executed conditionally, should that be
done by putting the conditional portion in an if(){} block, or
should it be skipped by means of an if()-prefixed 'continue'
statement? Every reader can understand all the different
variations, but different readers will find some variations
easier to read than others, depending on what their "autopilots"
are used to.
The metaphor of "autopilot" and "pilot" isn't something I just
made up, but based on ideas in "Thinking Fast and Slow", by
Daniel Kahneman. Two important results from his studies (ie,
beyond just the existence of the different thought modes): one,
stuff done "by the pilot" is in fact slower than stuff done "on
autopilot"; and two, stuff done "by the pilot" needs more effort
than stuff done "on autopilot" - the body burns more calories and
gets tired sooner by "pilot" thinking than "autopilot" thinking.
Let me give one more personal example. Here are two for() lines:
for ( i=0; i<N; ++i ) ...
for ( i=0; i<N; i++ ) ...
Now I _know_ these two lines do the same thing. Despite that, I
feel a little blip in my thinking reading one of them, but not
when reading the other. The latter case is all autopilot; the
former needs a few milliseconds of attention from the pilot. I
admit it is somewhat depressing that this is still true after
decades of C programming, but there it is.
So.. for the 'x==3' versus '3==x' case, I'm sure it is my long
ingrained habit of writing the unknown on the left that makes
'x==3' essentially zero effort to read, and '3==x' noticeably
non-zero effort to read. No doubt I could change that, with
enough work, but it doesn't seem worthwhile - the effort needed
is nowhere close to small, and the benefit is.. milliscopic?
Anyway not more than that. Since it appears that more people
share my reaction than do not, for me that settles the question.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web