Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #97546 > unrolled thread
| Started by | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-11-26 12:49 -0800 |
| Last post | 2016-12-01 12:33 +0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 567 — 30 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
absence of max fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 12:49 -0800
absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-26 15:34 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 00:21 +0000
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 04:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-11-27 13:54 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 13:54 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-27 07:33 -0800
Re: absence of max Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-27 14:06 +0100
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-27 17:47 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 07:13 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-28 15:35 +0000
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 07:48 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 07:53 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 00:14 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 00:36 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 02:03 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-28 23:23 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-28 21:05 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-28 16:53 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 08:07 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 10:37 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 08:26 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 10:42 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 08:16 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 09:31 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 10:38 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 10:59 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 12:09 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 12:46 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 13:05 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 13:50 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 10:52 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 05:44 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 15:12 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 06:54 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-30 10:37 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 03:07 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-30 13:28 +0100
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-30 05:12 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-28 18:57 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 11:33 -0800
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-28 20:09 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 10:55 +0100
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 10:06 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 11:18 +0100
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 10:28 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 10:49 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 10:51 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 11:40 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 12:17 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 15:18 +0000
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 18:30 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 18:49 +0000
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-29 14:09 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-29 10:56 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-29 11:29 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 20:27 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 20:31 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-30 10:45 +0100
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-29 12:54 -0800
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-29 16:21 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 21:47 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 21:30 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-29 14:12 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 22:27 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-29 22:33 +0000
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-29 14:52 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-29 15:43 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 23:51 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 00:51 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-30 02:08 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-29 18:10 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 12:29 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-28 21:30 +0000
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 13:47 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 14:59 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 15:13 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 00:12 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 01:11 +0000
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-28 18:01 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 02:19 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-29 13:26 -0800
Re: absence of max "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-11-29 17:09 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 00:01 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 00:29 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 17:02 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 01:21 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-28 17:53 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-28 23:11 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-29 02:12 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 11:17 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-29 09:46 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 15:45 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-29 17:04 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-29 07:21 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-29 15:50 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-30 00:19 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 00:43 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-30 01:51 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-29 22:26 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 11:25 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 09:07 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 14:22 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-30 09:03 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 23:38 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-30 15:49 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 00:10 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-30 17:22 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 01:40 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-30 18:03 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 17:25 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 23:29 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 23:55 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-01 10:05 +0100
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-01 11:20 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 11:41 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-01 13:48 +0100
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 10:43 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-01 21:23 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 14:41 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-02 09:39 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 11:35 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-01 14:51 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 15:05 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 10:49 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-01 20:48 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-01 16:51 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-01 01:18 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-30 23:57 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-01 11:38 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-01 13:28 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-02 00:06 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-01 20:02 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-02 02:22 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-01 21:42 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 01:56 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 21:25 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 02:33 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-03 15:20 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-03 15:40 -0500
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-02 21:57 +1300
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 10:46 -0500
Re: absence of max asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-11-30 06:36 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 16:41 +0000
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-30 20:50 +1300
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 11:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-30 12:00 +0000
Re: absence of max James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-30 11:32 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-30 19:25 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-30 20:45 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-30 12:52 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-30 14:17 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-01 10:14 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 07:37 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-01 17:05 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 10:06 -0800
Re: absence of max James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-01 13:53 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 12:22 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-01 19:02 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-02 10:05 +0100
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-02 11:01 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-02 17:28 +0100
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-01 21:13 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 10:53 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 11:51 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 12:52 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 14:28 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-01 14:48 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-01 15:00 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-01 19:28 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-02 10:30 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 07:24 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 10:50 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 09:39 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-02 10:17 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-02 11:46 -0800
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-02 15:02 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 11:58 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-02 13:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 15:31 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 13:34 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 19:32 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-03 01:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 20:48 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 02:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 21:27 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 02:50 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-02 22:45 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-03 11:07 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-03 15:46 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-03 13:46 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 23:29 +0000
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-03 18:42 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 23:59 +0000
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 08:31 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-10 13:51 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-10 22:08 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-03 20:19 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-04 01:28 +0000
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-04 14:34 +1300
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-05 00:02 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-05 10:34 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 08:38 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-05 15:52 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 16:03 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-03 19:19 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-04 11:26 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 11:33 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-03 15:48 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-04 00:59 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-03 20:23 -0500
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-03 10:32 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-03 17:15 +0100
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-03 08:33 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-03 11:08 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-03 21:31 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-04 08:40 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-04 19:39 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-05 07:15 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 16:09 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-05 13:38 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-05 14:12 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 22:21 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-05 22:05 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 10:46 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-06 09:45 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 13:25 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-06 10:33 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 16:25 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-06 15:10 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 20:48 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-07 14:43 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 09:26 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-08 11:32 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 21:56 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-08 20:28 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:10 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 21:17 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:01 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 20:00 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 22:51 -0500
Re: absence of max cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2016-12-10 04:44 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-05 22:49 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-05 15:24 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 22:25 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-05 22:24 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-05 22:47 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 10:51 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-06 10:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 16:26 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-07 02:09 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 09:30 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 01:44 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 09:29 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 21:54 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:05 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 11:39 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:16 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 16:45 +0100
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-09 21:07 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 22:58 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-10 17:49 +0100
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-09 16:46 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 22:56 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-10 14:04 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-10 08:45 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-10 14:54 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 15:40 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-11 23:13 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 17:59 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 18:13 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:02 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-16 22:47 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 22:38 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 14:43 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-17 13:52 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 10:00 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 09:58 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 16:39 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 22:48 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-18 16:51 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 11:54 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-19 21:24 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 17:38 -0500
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-19 15:11 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 19:12 -0500
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-19 17:23 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 21:41 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-17 09:23 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 22:49 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-18 08:26 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 11:56 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-19 19:19 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-19 17:40 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-10 18:03 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 15:44 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-10 01:19 -0600
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 21:52 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:02 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-10 12:59 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 15:52 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 03:18 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 22:29 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 04:12 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:44 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-06 06:10 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 10:58 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-06 10:21 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-06 10:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-06 16:28 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-07 02:48 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 09:34 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 06:58 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 15:15 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 12:30 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 16:25 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 13:46 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-07 13:53 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 14:03 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-07 14:50 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 07:46 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-10 13:44 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-14 22:12 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 17:00 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 14:08 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 17:28 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-07 17:29 -0500
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-07 14:49 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-07 16:24 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-07 17:04 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 07:29 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-10 13:37 -0800
Re: absence of max me <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2016-12-07 14:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 02:19 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 02:07 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 09:36 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-08 16:22 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 10:52 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-08 08:11 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:08 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-08 12:50 -0800
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-09 10:14 +1300
Re: absence of max Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-12-08 22:17 +0100
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-09 10:21 +1300
Re: absence of max Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-12-08 22:24 +0100
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 13:06 +0100
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-09 21:15 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:05 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-10 03:22 -0600
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-10 15:12 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 15:57 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-12 00:13 -0600
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:48 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-10 14:11 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 15:59 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-11 23:18 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 17:59 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 18:18 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:04 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-16 22:48 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 22:39 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 14:45 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 10:01 -0500
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-17 11:27 -0800
People who confuse and jumble up the difference between past, present, and future (Was: absence of max) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2016-12-17 20:07 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:17 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:17 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:15 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 08:40 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 13:19 +0100
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 12:29 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 14:34 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:24 -0500
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 16:58 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:09 -0500
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-11 20:56 +1300
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-09 16:52 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 13:35 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 13:42 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 13:54 +0000
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 07:54 -0800
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-11 16:14 +0000
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-11 18:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-14 21:08 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:25 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:18 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 15:55 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:11 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:21 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-12-10 01:48 -0600
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-09 13:02 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:39 -0500
Re: absence of max cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2016-12-10 04:37 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-10 00:13 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 22:22 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:19 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-07 19:40 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 09:38 -0500
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-08 07:52 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-08 19:37 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-08 14:46 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-08 15:46 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-13 13:04 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-13 13:38 -0800
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-13 14:07 -0800
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-13 22:51 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-14 08:17 -0800
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-14 11:49 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-14 16:53 -0800
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-15 05:14 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-15 15:02 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-15 08:54 -0800
Re: absence of max raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-12-15 19:55 +0000
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-15 13:48 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-15 14:20 -0800
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-15 15:32 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-15 23:44 +0100
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-16 07:00 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-16 08:21 +0000
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-16 21:10 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-16 13:24 -0800
Re: absence of max "D. Aaron Sawyer" <aaron@110.net> - 2016-12-16 18:51 -0400
Re: absence of max raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-12-20 09:03 +0000
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-20 02:21 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-14 19:05 +0100
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-14 22:46 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-08 15:58 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 00:18 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-09 07:25 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-09 11:29 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-12-10 09:07 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-10 14:20 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 21:31 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:15 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-10 12:15 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 16:04 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:27 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-09 22:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-09 15:45 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:21 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:19 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-10 12:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 16:04 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 03:15 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 22:31 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 04:14 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:50 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 23:18 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:05 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-17 02:58 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 22:40 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 18:20 +0100
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 17:29 +0000
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 18:53 +0100
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 17:58 +0000
Re: absence of max cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) - 2016-12-12 19:11 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-13 10:31 +0100
Re: absence of max Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-12-12 15:38 -0800
Re: absence of max raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-12-15 12:08 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:06 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-16 22:49 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 22:44 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 14:47 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 10:04 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 16:45 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 22:51 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-17 13:52 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 22:51 -0500
Re: absence of max Parity Error <kgf@quiscurat.net> - 2016-12-18 09:17 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:23 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-08 12:23 -0800
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-12-08 20:45 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-08 22:32 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 08:42 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 10:40 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-09 16:10 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-09 23:33 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-11 15:02 +0000
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-11 13:01 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 16:11 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-11 23:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 18:59 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 00:09 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 20:56 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 08:04 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:50 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-11 16:18 -0800
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-11 19:38 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 21:04 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 03:35 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:52 -0500
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 23:22 +0000
Re: absence of max Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-12-12 17:35 +1300
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 09:54 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 08:17 +0000
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 13:01 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 13:16 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 10:05 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 15:21 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:09 -0500
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-12 13:12 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-12 03:01 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 22:03 -0500
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-12 12:58 -0500
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:11 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-16 22:53 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 22:46 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 14:49 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 10:07 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-17 16:47 +0100
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-17 22:53 -0500
Re: absence of max Parity Error <kgf@quiscurat.net> - 2016-12-18 09:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 18:32 +0100
Re: absence of max "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-12 13:26 -0500
Re: absence of max Robert Spanjaard <spamtrap@arumes.com> - 2016-12-12 19:39 +0100
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-12 11:31 -0800
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 16:07 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-11 23:10 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 19:01 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 00:11 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-11 21:06 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 08:19 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-12 10:07 -0500
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-12-12 15:22 +0000
Re: absence of max Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-12-16 16:13 -0500
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-12 15:38 +0000
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-02 08:54 -0800
Re: absence of max Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-02 17:20 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 07:35 -0800
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-12-02 09:52 -0800
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-12-02 10:44 -0800
Re: absence of max James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-30 16:52 -0500
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-30 08:31 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-28 23:15 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 10:49 +0100
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-27 17:35 +0100
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-27 09:39 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-27 20:35 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 20:10 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-27 22:07 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 22:55 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-28 12:46 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-28 13:16 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-28 14:52 +0100
Re: absence of max jadill33@gmail.com - 2016-11-28 09:41 -0800
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-29 11:04 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 18:02 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-27 20:52 +0100
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 20:31 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 22:09 +0000
Re: absence of max supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-27 14:14 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 23:02 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-27 23:26 +0000
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 23:43 +0000
Re: absence of max Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-27 23:46 +0000
Re: absence of max David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-28 12:56 +0100
Re: absence of max jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-27 16:21 -0800
Re: absence of max Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-28 10:10 -0800
Re: absence of max Tim Prince <tprince@computer.org> - 2016-11-27 07:40 -0500
absence of max asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-11-27 08:46 -0800
Re: absence of max fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 09:18 -0800
Re: absence of max asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-11-27 09:22 -0800
Re: absence of max fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 09:27 -0800
Re: absence of max BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-27 17:33 +0000
Re: absence of max Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 17:51 +0000
Re: absence of max Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-11-30 13:15 -0500
Re: absence of max "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-12-01 12:33 +0800
Page 6 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 29 Next page →
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 11:25 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o1mctf$egl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #97767 |
On 30/11/2016 03:26, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 11/29/2016 7:43 PM, BartC wrote: >> Now the type model strengthens, but only a little, since C still allows >> mere pointers to be indexed. Like putting a five-lever lock on your >> front door, but having bar-type swing doors right next to it! >> > > You are the only one who seems to have problems like this, Bart. So you > should be creating your own language instead of continuing to bitch > about C, Perhaps you haven't followed my posting history closely. That's exactly what I did, long before I properly encountered C. And I've since been wondering why it's got so many things backwards! Some things have taken me a while to appreciate; maybe I couldn't quite believe they were as bad as they apparently are. My alternate languages can do pretty much everything that C can do, but without this particular hole in the type system, with the simple expedient of requiring constructs like this: T* P; P[i]; to be written as: *(P+i); A[i]-style indexing can only be applied when A is an array; end of. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 09:07 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o1mmbg$erc$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #97773 |
On 11/30/2016 6:25 AM, BartC wrote: > On 30/11/2016 03:26, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 11/29/2016 7:43 PM, BartC wrote: > >>> Now the type model strengthens, but only a little, since C still allows >>> mere pointers to be indexed. Like putting a five-lever lock on your >>> front door, but having bar-type swing doors right next to it! >>> >> >> You are the only one who seems to have problems like this, Bart. So you >> should be creating your own language instead of continuing to bitch >> about C, > > Perhaps you haven't followed my posting history closely. That's exactly > what I did, long before I properly encountered C. And I've since been > wondering why it's got so many things backwards! > Oh, I've read your posting history, unfortunately. And from your constant bitching, it's obvious that C is not for you. C doesn't have anything backwards. But it doesn't hold your hand like many other languages do. It generates efficient code, with little run-time checking. But it means you, the programmer, have to be more intelligent in what you code. > Some things have taken me a while to appreciate; maybe I couldn't quite > believe they were as bad as they apparently are. > There is nothing bad about C - other than the fact you seem to need a language that holds your hand constantly. C is not it. > My alternate languages can do pretty much everything that C can do, but > without this particular hole in the type system, with the simple > expedient of requiring constructs like this: > > T* P; > P[i]; > > to be written as: > > *(P+i); > > A[i]-style indexing can only be applied when A is an array; end of. > > > There is no hole in the type system. The name of an array is a pointer to the first character. Period. They are not two different types, like they are in most other languages. And since your alternate languages can do pretty much everything that C can do, I suggest you use them. Your would rather bitch about C than learn how to do it properly. Had you been in one of my classes, I would have kicked your arse out and told your manager to get you a job emptying waste cans. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 14:22 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o1mn94$i7n$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #97777 |
On 30/11/2016 14:07, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 11/30/2016 6:25 AM, BartC wrote: >> A[i]-style indexing can only be applied when A is an array; end of. > There is no hole in the type system. There /is/ a hole where value array types would go. C decided, instead of leaving the hole, so as to trap errors when someone attempts an unsupported operation [/and to allow for the possibility of value array ops in the future/], to fill the hole with 'pointer to array first element'. I think that was a bad decision. And leads to inconsistencies such as 'int A[10]' meaning different things in different contexts. > The name of an array is a pointer > to the first character. Period. They are not two different types, like > they are in most other languages. I wonder why 'most other languages' do things differently! > And since your alternate languages can do pretty much everything that C > can do, I suggest you use them. I do. When I use C now, it's usually for intermediate code. Or to figure out how interfaces work (at the minute, I'm about to delve into the mysteries of 'dirent.h' in order to derive the binary interface I need). > Your would rather bitch about C than > learn how to do it properly. Had you been in one of my classes, I would > have kicked your arse out You only want students who take everything at face value and don't ask awkward questions? BTW do /you/ find everything in C (or in any language) 100% perfect? If not, how would relish being 'kicked out' of classes if you dared to voice your opinions? Finally, how do languages ever evolve if nobody ever objects to anything in them? -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 09:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d4ce3e69-2889-4a03-9b78-a7f961d48bda@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #97778 |
On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 8:22:55 AM UTC-6, Bart wrote:
> There /is/ a hole where value array types would go. C decided, instead
> of leaving the hole, so as to trap errors when someone attempts an
> unsupported operation [/and to allow for the possibility of value array
> ops in the future/], to fill the hole with 'pointer to array first element'.
An interesting semantic feature of C is that given the declarations:
someType someThing = {1,2};
void func(someType it);
the function call "func(someThing);" can pass someThing with either
value or reference semantics, depending upon what "someType" is. I'm
not sure that the benefits of that feature outweigh the potential for
confusion if code tries to exploit it, but for better or worse some
code does rely upon it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 23:38 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o1nnr6$ioj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #97784 |
On 30/11/2016 17:03, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 30, 2016 at 8:22:55 AM UTC-6, Bart wrote:
>> There /is/ a hole where value array types would go. C decided, instead
>> of leaving the hole, so as to trap errors when someone attempts an
>> unsupported operation [/and to allow for the possibility of value array
>> ops in the future/], to fill the hole with 'pointer to array first element'.
>
> An interesting semantic feature of C is that given the declarations:
>
> someType someThing = {1,2};
> void func(someType it);
>
> the function call "func(someThing);" can pass someThing with either
> value or reference semantics, depending upon what "someType" is. I'm
> not sure that the benefits of that feature outweigh the potential for
> confusion if code tries to exploit it, but for better or worse some
> code does rely upon it.
Here's an example. someType1/2 are both opaque types as far as main() is
concerned. But the behaviour is different depending on whether they are
defined as a two-element struct, or two-element array:
typedef struct {int x, y;} someType1;
typedef int someType2[2];
void func1(someType1 P) {P.x = 9999;}
void func2(someType2 P) {P[0] = 9999;}
int main(void)
{
someType1 A = {10,20};
someType2 B = {10,20};
func1(A);
func2(B);
printf("A = {%d,%d}\n", A.x, A.y);
printf("B = {%d,%d}\n", B[0], B[1]);
}
Output:
A = {10,20}
B = {9999,20}
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 15:49 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lntwao7ckh.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #97798 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
[...]
> Here's an example. someType1/2 are both opaque types as far as main() is
> concerned. But the behaviour is different depending on whether they are
> defined as a two-element struct, or two-element array:
Then they're not opaque, are they?
[snip]
--
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 | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-01 00:10 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o1npn3$oph$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #97799 |
On 30/11/2016 23:49, Keith Thompson wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > [...] >> Here's an example. someType1/2 are both opaque types as far as main() is >> concerned. But the behaviour is different depending on whether they are >> defined as a two-element struct, or two-element array: > > Then they're not opaque, are they? main() doesn't know whether each is struct or array. (Except in the printf calls for this test, but that can also be provided as print_someType1 and so on.) If such a type provided by a library changed implementation between array and struct, then code will need recompiling, but may also behave differently. This is a consequence of array types hitting that 'hole' in the type system and needing to change from pass-by-value, to pass-by-value-of-pointer-to-first-element-of-array. Or in reverse if moving away from array types. Everyone knows this, but Jerry Stuckle is insisting either that there is no such discontinuity in the type system, or is saying that it is inconsequential. Although more than likely he just likes to have the last word. (A bit like me then...) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 17:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lnpolc789t.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #97800 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 30/11/2016 23:49, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> [...]
>>> Here's an example. someType1/2 are both opaque types as far as main() is
>>> concerned. But the behaviour is different depending on whether they are
>>> defined as a two-element struct, or two-element array:
>>
>> Then they're not opaque, are they?
>
> main() doesn't know whether each is struct or array. (Except in the
> printf calls for this test, but that can also be provided as
> print_someType1 and so on.)
Sure it does. The declarations of both types are visible from main.
> If such a type provided by a library changed implementation between
> array and struct, then code will need recompiling, but may also behave
> differently.
Yes, if you change a type, the code will behave differently.
> This is a consequence of array types hitting that 'hole' in the type
> system and needing to change from pass-by-value, to
> pass-by-value-of-pointer-to-first-element-of-array. Or in reverse if
> moving away from array types.
More accurately, arrays cannot be passed as arguments (though it's easy
to achieve the effect of passing them by reference).
[...]
--
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 | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-01 01:40 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o1nv0i$c5o$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #97802 |
On 01/12/2016 01:22, Keith Thompson wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> On 30/11/2016 23:49, Keith Thompson wrote: >>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> [...] >>>> Here's an example. someType1/2 are both opaque types as far as main() is >>>> concerned. But the behaviour is different depending on whether they are >>>> defined as a two-element struct, or two-element array: >>> >>> Then they're not opaque, are they? >> >> main() doesn't know whether each is struct or array. (Except in the >> printf calls for this test, but that can also be provided as >> print_someType1 and so on.) > > Sure it does. The declarations of both types are visible from main. Then there can be no such thing as an opaque type, since you can always trawl through macros, typedefs and headers to find out what they are. And the compiler will of course know. An opaque type is one where the use of that type should not need to know what it is, or to have to change any user-code if the implementation of the type changes. -- bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 18:03 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lnlgw076dy.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #97803 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 01/12/2016 01:22, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> On 30/11/2016 23:49, Keith Thompson wrote:
>>>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> Here's an example. someType1/2 are both opaque types as far as main() is
>>>>> concerned. But the behaviour is different depending on whether they are
>>>>> defined as a two-element struct, or two-element array:
>>>>
>>>> Then they're not opaque, are they?
>>>
>>> main() doesn't know whether each is struct or array. (Except in the
>>> printf calls for this test, but that can also be provided as
>>> print_someType1 and so on.)
>>
>> Sure it does. The declarations of both types are visible from main.
>
> Then there can be no such thing as an opaque type, since you can always
> trawl through macros, typedefs and headers to find out what they are.
> And the compiler will of course know.
You can define an incomplete struct type and use pointers to it. The
full type is visible only in the .c file that implements the operations
on it. Type FILE could be an example.
> An opaque type is one where the use of that type should not need to know
> what it is, or to have to change any user-code if the implementation of
> the type changes.
Then it shouldn't be implemented as an array type.
You're absolutely right that implementing an opaque type as an array
type can cause problems (unless operations are limited to act only on
pointers to the type, as for FILE). Your conclusion is that there's a
fatal flaw in the language. Mine is that you shouldn't implement an
opaque type as an array type.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 17:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o1njhr$21u$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #97778 |
On 11/30/2016 9:22 AM, BartC wrote: > On 30/11/2016 14:07, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 11/30/2016 6:25 AM, BartC wrote: > >>> A[i]-style indexing can only be applied when A is an array; end of. > >> There is no hole in the type system. > > There /is/ a hole where value array types would go. C decided, instead > of leaving the hole, so as to trap errors when someone attempts an > unsupported operation [/and to allow for the possibility of value array > ops in the future/], to fill the hole with 'pointer to array first > element'. > YOU consider it a hole. No one else does. Who do you think is more likely to be wrong? Hint: it isn't everybody else. > I think that was a bad decision. And leads to inconsistencies such as > 'int A[10]' meaning different things in different contexts. > It doesn't make a difference what you think. That's the way it is. >> The name of an array is a pointer >> to the first character. Period. They are not two different types, like >> they are in most other languages. > > I wonder why 'most other languages' do things differently! > Other language hold you by the hand and do lots of runtime checks. This leads to code bloat and slow performance. C has been very popular due to the size and speed of its generated code. >> And since your alternate languages can do pretty much everything that C >> can do, I suggest you use them. > > I do. When I use C now, it's usually for intermediate code. Or to figure > out how interfaces work (at the minute, I'm about to delve into the > mysteries of 'dirent.h' in order to derive the binary interface I need). > Well, maybe you should use your other languages for your intermediate code also, then. And you can also use assembler. >> Your would rather bitch about C than >> learn how to do it properly. Had you been in one of my classes, I would >> have kicked your arse out > > You only want students who take everything at face value and don't ask > awkward questions? > I encouraged them to ask any questions - and I got a lot. But I never got one as stupid as what you're asking. > BTW do /you/ find everything in C (or in any language) 100% perfect? If > not, how would relish being 'kicked out' of classes if you dared to > voice your opinions? > I never said it was perfect. But it does well for what I want. I don't waste time and energy complaining about something that works quite well. > Finally, how do languages ever evolve if nobody ever objects to anything > in them? > So, get on the C committee and propose changes. See if anyone else agrees with you. Hint: they won't. This newsgroup isn't monitored by anyone on the C committee, AFAIK - at least I've never seen any names I recognize post here, and the couple of guys I do know don't read it. All you are doing is wasting everyone else's time with your constant bitching (and that's exactly what it is). -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 23:29 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o1nnap$h47$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #97796 |
On 30/11/2016 22:25, Jerry Stuckle wrote: > On 11/30/2016 9:22 AM, BartC wrote: >> On 30/11/2016 14:07, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 11/30/2016 6:25 AM, BartC wrote: >> >>>> A[i]-style indexing can only be applied when A is an array; end of. >> >>> There is no hole in the type system. >> >> There /is/ a hole where value array types would go. C decided, instead >> of leaving the hole, so as to trap errors when someone attempts an >> unsupported operation [/and to allow for the possibility of value array >> ops in the future/], to fill the hole with 'pointer to array first >> element'. > > YOU consider it a hole. No one else does. Who do you think is more > likely to be wrong? Hint: it isn't everybody else. Have you got an opinion of your own, or do you have to depend on someone else's? Take this pointer to pointer to array[4] of int: int (**P)[10]; Here's how it behaves without the 'hole': P; // type: ptr to ptr to array[4]int *P // type: ptr to array[4]int **P // type: array[4]int Notice the regular progression as more derefs are applied. Each ptr of the original type is gradually struck through as each deref is done. And here's how it behaves in C: P; // type: ptr to ptr to array[4]int *P // type: ptr to array[4]int **P // type: ptr to int Notice the discontinuity in the third line; what's happened to the array, and why are there three lots of pointers when the original type had two? (I don't want any answers, just showing what happens.) With the top version, also, if you subsequently want to index **P, it still has the array[4]int identity, and bounds checking and other goodies are on the cards. With the second version as it works in C, the array identity and the bounds have been lost. The int* is now indistinguishable from any other. Here is a pointer to pointer to pointer to int: int ***Q; And this is how it behaves in C: Q; // type: ptr to ptr to ptr to int *Q // type: ptr to ptr to int **Q // type: ptr to int Notice the last line for **Q has exactly the same type as the last **P line above for C. Surely P and Q must therefore have the same type? Um, no, they don't! -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-30 23:55 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <o1oada$v5t$1@jstuckle.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #97797 |
On 11/30/2016 6:29 PM, BartC wrote: > On 30/11/2016 22:25, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >> On 11/30/2016 9:22 AM, BartC wrote: >>> On 30/11/2016 14:07, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 11/30/2016 6:25 AM, BartC wrote: >>> >>>>> A[i]-style indexing can only be applied when A is an array; end of. >>> >>>> There is no hole in the type system. >>> >>> There /is/ a hole where value array types would go. C decided, instead >>> of leaving the hole, so as to trap errors when someone attempts an >>> unsupported operation [/and to allow for the possibility of value array >>> ops in the future/], to fill the hole with 'pointer to array first >>> element'. >> >> YOU consider it a hole. No one else does. Who do you think is more >> likely to be wrong? Hint: it isn't everybody else. > > Have you got an opinion of your own, or do you have to depend on someone > else's? > I go by the standard. > Take this pointer to pointer to array[4] of int: > > int (**P)[10]; > > Here's how it behaves without the 'hole': > > P; // type: ptr to ptr to array[4]int > *P // type: ptr to array[4]int > **P // type: array[4]int > > Notice the regular progression as more derefs are applied. Each ptr of > the original type is gradually struck through as each deref is done. > Incorrect. In each case, it only points at an int (element 0 of the array). Whether there are more elements or not is immaterial to the definition of P. > And here's how it behaves in C: > > P; // type: ptr to ptr to array[4]int > *P // type: ptr to array[4]int > **P // type: ptr to int > Incorrect, as I indicated above. They are all eventually pointing at a single value of type int. > Notice the discontinuity in the third line; what's happened to the > array, and why are there three lots of pointers when the original type > had two? (I don't want any answers, just showing what happens.) > The discontinuity is between your ears. > With the top version, also, if you subsequently want to index **P, it > still has the array[4]int identity, and bounds checking and other > goodies are on the cards. With the second version as it works in C, the > array identity and the bounds have been lost. The int* is now > indistinguishable from any other. > > Here is a pointer to pointer to pointer to int: > > int ***Q; > > And this is how it behaves in C: > > Q; // type: ptr to ptr to ptr to int > *Q // type: ptr to ptr to int > **Q // type: ptr to int > > Notice the last line for **Q has exactly the same type as the last **P > line above for C. Surely P and Q must therefore have the same type? Um, > no, they don't! > > Which is exactly how P works. -- ================== Remove the "x" from my email address Jerry Stuckle jstucklex@attglobal.net ==================
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-01 10:05 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o1op24$6af$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #97797 |
On 01/12/16 00:29, BartC wrote:
> On 30/11/2016 22:25, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> On 11/30/2016 9:22 AM, BartC wrote:
>>> On 30/11/2016 14:07, Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>>>> On 11/30/2016 6:25 AM, BartC wrote:
>>>
>>>>> A[i]-style indexing can only be applied when A is an array; end of.
>>>
>>>> There is no hole in the type system.
>>>
>>> There /is/ a hole where value array types would go. C decided, instead
>>> of leaving the hole, so as to trap errors when someone attempts an
>>> unsupported operation [/and to allow for the possibility of value array
>>> ops in the future/], to fill the hole with 'pointer to array first
>>> element'.
>>
>> YOU consider it a hole. No one else does. Who do you think is more
>> likely to be wrong? Hint: it isn't everybody else.
>
> Have you got an opinion of your own, or do you have to depend on someone
> else's?
>
Often Jerry is the one with the unique opinion contrary to everyone else
- but here he is entirely correct.
Basically, Bart, you seem to want C to be able to spot all logical
errors in code as syntax errors in the language. But that is pure
wishful thinking - /no/ language does that (not even Ada, where it is
said that if you can get the code to compile, it is ready to ship).
Certainly it is true that C /allows/ more code to be syntactically valid
while clearly logically incorrect than many other languages. But that
is the price for the efficiency of a low-level language. If you want
arrays and pointers that are stricter, try a different programming
language or use C in a stricter manner.
It is true that C passes arrays as pointers (by reference) rather than
by value, and it is true that C syntax lets you take a pointer to a
single int and then use array indexing on that pointer. It also lets
you write code like this:
int The_author_of_this_code_is_a_moron;
int integerSquareRoot(int x) {
return 42;
}
Do you want the C language to be changed to disallow /all/ incorrect
code, or is it just some bits that you specially don't like?
The way to handle this is perfectly simple. Learn how C works, then use
it correctly. Don't write code that is clearly incorrect, even if it is
syntactically valid. For someone who only uses C as a generated
intermediary language, you have absolutely /no/ excuse - you should use
only the subset of the language that you understand and can use correctly.
And for your reference, C has a perfectly good way of making arrays that
are passed by value. You just embed them in a struct:
typedef struct {
int data[4];
} intArray4;
intArray4 doubler(intArray4 xs) {
intArray4 ys;
for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
ys.data[i] = xs.data[i] * 2;
}
return ys;
}
int foobar(void) {
intArray4 xs = {{ 1, 2, 3, 4}};
intArray4 ys = doubler(xs);
return ys.data[0] + ys.data[3];
}
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-01 11:20 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87mvgfzyja.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #97813 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > On 01/12/16 00:29, BartC wrote: >> On 30/11/2016 22:25, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>> On 11/30/2016 9:22 AM, BartC wrote: >>>> On 30/11/2016 14:07, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>> On 11/30/2016 6:25 AM, BartC wrote: >>>> >>>>>> A[i]-style indexing can only be applied when A is an array; end of. >>>> >>>>> There is no hole in the type system. >>>> >>>> There /is/ a hole where value array types would go. C decided, instead >>>> of leaving the hole, so as to trap errors when someone attempts an >>>> unsupported operation [/and to allow for the possibility of value array >>>> ops in the future/], to fill the hole with 'pointer to array first >>>> element'. >>> >>> YOU consider it a hole. No one else does. Who do you think is more >>> likely to be wrong? Hint: it isn't everybody else. >> >> Have you got an opinion of your own, or do you have to depend on someone >> else's? > > Often Jerry is the one with the unique opinion contrary to everyone else > - but here he is entirely correct. I'm very surprised to see you write that. C's array types stand out amongst all it objects types because they can't be assigned nor passed to or returned from functions. That seems to be the hole BartC is referring to and, until I saw this post, I'd assumed it was not a contentious statement. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-01 11:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o1p27i$4mh$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #97815 |
On 01/12/2016 11:20, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > >> On 01/12/16 00:29, BartC wrote: >>> Have you got an opinion of your own, or do you have to depend on someone >>> else's? >> >> Often Jerry is the one with the unique opinion contrary to everyone else >> - but here he is entirely correct. > > I'm very surprised to see you write that. C's array types stand out > amongst all it objects types because they can't be assigned nor passed > to or returned from functions. Or compared (for equality at least). Absence of padding bytes means there are actually fewer issues with doing that than for structs. For fixed-length arrays anyway. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-01 13:48 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o1p63t$i6d$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #97815 |
On 01/12/16 12:20, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > >> On 01/12/16 00:29, BartC wrote: >>> On 30/11/2016 22:25, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>> On 11/30/2016 9:22 AM, BartC wrote: >>>>> On 30/11/2016 14:07, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>> On 11/30/2016 6:25 AM, BartC wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>> A[i]-style indexing can only be applied when A is an array; end of. >>>>> >>>>>> There is no hole in the type system. >>>>> >>>>> There /is/ a hole where value array types would go. C decided, instead >>>>> of leaving the hole, so as to trap errors when someone attempts an >>>>> unsupported operation [/and to allow for the possibility of value array >>>>> ops in the future/], to fill the hole with 'pointer to array first >>>>> element'. >>>> >>>> YOU consider it a hole. No one else does. Who do you think is more >>>> likely to be wrong? Hint: it isn't everybody else. >>> >>> Have you got an opinion of your own, or do you have to depend on someone >>> else's? >> >> Often Jerry is the one with the unique opinion contrary to everyone else >> - but here he is entirely correct. > > I'm very surprised to see you write that. C's array types stand out > amongst all it objects types because they can't be assigned nor passed > to or returned from functions. That seems to be the hole BartC is > referring to and, until I saw this post, I'd assumed it was not a > contentious statement. > What I really meant is that it is not a problem in C. Yes, C array types are a bit different from other types - but I don't see it as a "hole" or a problem here. It is just the way C works. There are many aspects of C and C types that are inconsistent (such as Supercat's favourite, the way unsigned short types can get promoted to signed ints leading to undefined behaviour). But the way arrays work in C is not a "hole in the type system" - it is just a little odd.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-01 10:43 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lnh96n7amp.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #97819 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
> On 01/12/16 12:20, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
[...]
>> I'm very surprised to see you write that. C's array types stand out
>> amongst all it objects types because they can't be assigned nor passed
>> to or returned from functions. That seems to be the hole BartC is
>> referring to and, until I saw this post, I'd assumed it was not a
>> contentious statement.
>
> What I really meant is that it is not a problem in C. Yes, C array
> types are a bit different from other types - but I don't see it as a
> "hole" or a problem here. It is just the way C works. There are many
> aspects of C and C types that are inconsistent (such as Supercat's
> favourite, the way unsigned short types can get promoted to signed ints
> leading to undefined behaviour). But the way arrays work in C is not a
> "hole in the type system" - it is just a little odd.
Now all we need is a rigorous definition of "hole", and we can all
agree.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-01 21:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8760n3z6l9.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #97819 |
David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: > On 01/12/16 12:20, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes: >> >>> On 01/12/16 00:29, BartC wrote: >>>> On 30/11/2016 22:25, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>> On 11/30/2016 9:22 AM, BartC wrote: >>>>>> On 30/11/2016 14:07, Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>>>> On 11/30/2016 6:25 AM, BartC wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>> A[i]-style indexing can only be applied when A is an array; end of. >>>>>> >>>>>>> There is no hole in the type system. >>>>>> >>>>>> There /is/ a hole where value array types would go. C decided, instead >>>>>> of leaving the hole, so as to trap errors when someone attempts an >>>>>> unsupported operation [/and to allow for the possibility of value array >>>>>> ops in the future/], to fill the hole with 'pointer to array first >>>>>> element'. >>>>> >>>>> YOU consider it a hole. No one else does. Who do you think is more >>>>> likely to be wrong? Hint: it isn't everybody else. >>>> >>>> Have you got an opinion of your own, or do you have to depend on someone >>>> else's? >>> >>> Often Jerry is the one with the unique opinion contrary to everyone else >>> - but here he is entirely correct. >> >> I'm very surprised to see you write that. C's array types stand out >> amongst all it objects types because they can't be assigned nor passed >> to or returned from functions. That seems to be the hole BartC is >> referring to and, until I saw this post, I'd assumed it was not a >> contentious statement. > > What I really meant is that it is not a problem in C. Yes, C array > types are a bit different from other types - but I don't see it as a > "hole" or a problem here. It is just the way C works. <snip> Since the term "hole" is not a technical one you can use it in any way you like, but BartC was clearer, saying "There /is/ a hole where value array types would go". He made it clear what was missing (that is, after all, what a hole usually is), and it's seems we all agree on that[1]. The disagreement (if there is any) would be about how much it matters and since I can't quantify that I won't say any more. [1] There's a technicality here -- C does have array values, it's just that they get converted in almost all situations so you can't do much with them. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-12-01 14:41 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <lnr35r5l1k.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #97847 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
[...]
> [1] There's a technicality here -- C does have array values, it's just
> that they get converted in almost all situations so you can't do much
> with them.
As long as we're being technical ...
Yes, C does have array values. The definition of "value" ("precise
meaning of the contents of an object when interpreted as having
a specific type") applies to arrays as much as to any other kind
of object type.
But array *values* are not converted. 6.3.2.1p3 says:
Except when it is the operand of the sizeof operator, the
_Alignof operator, or the unary & operator, or is a string
literal used to initialize an array, an expression that has
type "array of type" is converted to an expression with type
"pointer to type"" that points to the initial element of the
array object and is not an lvalue.
It's an *expression* (a source code construct) that's being
"converted", not the value of that expression (a run-time construct).
This is not a run-time conversion; there's no information in the
value of an array object from which the address of its initial
element could be inferred. It would have been clearer IMHO to use
the word "adjusted" here, as 6.7.6.3 does for function parameters
of array type. In both cases, it's a compile-time adjustment of an
array expression/declaration to a pointer expression/declaration,
respectively.
But I agree with your conclusion: array values do exist, but there's
little or nothing you can (directly) do with them.
--
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]
Page 6 of 29 — ← Prev page 1 … 4 5 [6] 7 8 … 29 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web