Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #90018 > unrolled thread
| Started by | G G <gdotone@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-07-05 02:38 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-11-27 10:05 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 354 — 37 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
double free G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 02:38 -0700
Re: double free Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-07-05 21:45 +1200
Re: double free Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2016-07-05 07:08 -0400
Re: double free G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 16:41 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-05 10:50 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-05 11:06 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-05 19:07 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-05 12:16 +0000
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-05 13:57 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-05 08:43 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-05 14:57 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-10 18:49 +0000
Re: double free G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 17:03 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-05 17:25 -0700
Re: double free Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2016-07-06 19:09 +0000
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-06 15:22 -0400
Re: double free Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2016-07-09 06:13 +0100
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-09 10:16 -0400
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-09 08:58 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-09 13:28 -0700
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-11 10:41 +0000
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-09 20:27 +0200
Re: double free "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-09 11:31 -0700
Re: double free Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-07-09 20:14 +0100
Re: double free Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-09 15:34 -0400
Re: double free jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-07-09 14:02 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-09 14:10 -0700
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-09 17:14 -0400
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-09 14:24 -0700
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-09 17:31 -0400
Re: double free Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-09 20:50 -0400
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-09 15:50 -0400
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-10 11:32 +0200
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-10 16:01 -0400
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-11 10:07 +0200
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-11 08:15 -0400
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-11 06:53 -0700
Re: double free Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-11 10:35 -0600
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-11 09:48 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 11:02 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 11:01 -0700
Re: double free Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-11 13:03 -0600
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 10:57 -0700
Re: double free albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-11-27 13:29 +0100
Re: double free Melzzzzz <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2016-11-27 14:07 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-10 13:05 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-10 05:31 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-10 13:42 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-11 01:07 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-09 13:39 -0700
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-10 11:53 +0200
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-10 04:11 -0700
Re: double free Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-10 08:47 -0400
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-10 16:05 -0400
Re: double free Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-09 17:43 -0600
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-09 17:32 -0700
Re: double free Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-09 20:34 -0600
Re: double free Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2016-07-10 06:25 +0000
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-11 08:02 -0700
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-11 11:01 +0000
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-11 04:07 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 12:17 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-11 04:59 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 13:07 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 13:38 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 14:11 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 18:54 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 11:09 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 19:47 +0100
Re: double free Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-07-11 19:08 +0000
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-11 21:19 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 21:34 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 13:48 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-11 22:49 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 23:20 +0100
Re: double free Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-12 10:26 +0530
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-11 22:34 -0700
Re: double free Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-07-12 06:39 +0000
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-12 00:41 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 08:57 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-12 01:16 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 09:27 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-12 11:48 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 08:46 +0100
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-12 10:42 +0200
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 09:59 +0100
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-12 12:46 +0200
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 09:08 -0700
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-12 18:51 +0200
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 11:28 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-12 19:53 +0100
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-12 12:19 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 14:26 -0700
Re: double free Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-12 11:00 -0400
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 16:18 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 08:44 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-12 09:24 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-12 17:34 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-12 09:52 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 09:40 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-12 18:22 +0100
Re: double free Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-07-13 18:33 +0100
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-13 14:00 -0400
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 19:16 +0100
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-18 09:15 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-18 09:04 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-18 11:10 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-20 08:52 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-20 09:36 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-21 18:23 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 08:42 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-12 11:24 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-12 11:52 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-12 13:18 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-12 16:42 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-12 17:21 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 09:35 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-12 18:08 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-12 18:14 +0100
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-18 10:01 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-18 18:20 +0100
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-21 09:26 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-21 18:57 +0100
Re: double free Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> - 2016-07-22 23:41 +0530
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-22 19:47 +0100
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-22 11:58 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 12:03 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-22 20:26 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 13:12 -0700
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 08:57 +0000
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-23 10:21 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-23 11:08 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-23 12:36 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-23 07:14 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-23 16:41 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 19:17 +0000
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-23 20:42 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 12:51 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-23 21:50 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 14:17 -0700
Re: double free luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 15:53 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 20:55 -0700
Re: double free luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-23 22:21 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-24 10:35 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-24 02:55 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-24 04:05 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-24 14:03 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-24 14:24 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-24 15:15 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-24 16:01 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-24 11:36 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-24 19:52 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-24 12:14 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-24 11:13 -0700
Re: double free Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-24 14:52 -0500
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-25 09:59 -0700
Re: double free Martin Shobe <mashobe9@gmail.com> - 2016-07-25 19:32 -0500
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-25 07:39 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-24 10:55 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-24 08:30 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-23 11:11 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-23 12:39 -0700
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 20:25 +0000
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-22 12:51 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-22 13:18 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-24 08:23 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-24 19:36 +0100
Re: double free albert@cherry.spenarnc.xs4all.nl (Albert van der Horst) - 2016-12-02 10:21 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-12-02 10:57 +0000
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-12-02 12:33 +0000
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-12-02 14:07 +0100
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-02 10:19 -0500
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-02 08:56 -0800
Re: double free "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-12-02 12:31 -0500
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-12-02 11:42 -0800
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-12 08:46 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 09:16 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-12 09:27 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 08:20 -0700
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-12 12:47 -0400
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-12 22:21 +0000
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-12 23:27 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-12 16:28 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-13 00:23 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 08:43 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 11:21 +0100
Re: double free Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-07-13 12:56 +0200
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 12:35 +0100
Re: double free Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-13 10:34 -0400
Re: double free Cal Dershowitz <cal@example.invalid> - 2016-07-15 05:57 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 11:17 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-13 04:30 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 12:33 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 13:41 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 13:57 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-13 06:10 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-13 20:08 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 15:11 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 18:14 +0100
Re: double free Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-07-13 19:20 +0200
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 18:24 +0100
Re: double free Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-15 00:51 -0500
Re: double free luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-07-15 02:18 -0700
Re: double free "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-07-15 07:12 -0500
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-15 13:14 +0100
Re: double free Rosario19 <Ros@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-18 09:28 +0200
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 18:43 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-13 20:15 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 21:14 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-13 13:24 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 21:50 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 19:21 +0000
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-13 13:02 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 21:34 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-13 13:51 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-13 22:22 +0100
Re: double free Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-15 01:08 -0500
Re: double free Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2016-07-15 17:33 +0800
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-15 05:02 -0700
Re: double free Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2016-07-15 21:15 +0800
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 14:48 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-15 08:02 -0700
Re: double free Cal Dershowitz <cal@example.invalid> - 2016-07-18 01:42 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-18 03:07 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-13 22:01 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 22:14 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-13 14:31 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-13 23:03 +0100
Re: double free "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2016-07-13 17:53 -0500
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-13 16:18 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-13 16:19 -0700
Re: double free Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-13 22:44 -0400
Re: double free Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-07-14 09:44 +0200
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-13 17:07 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-14 07:13 -0700
Re: double free Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-15 01:18 -0500
Re: double free Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-07-13 10:46 -0400
Re: double free Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-15 00:59 -0500
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-14 23:47 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 11:22 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 11:35 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 14:33 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 15:16 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 16:19 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-15 08:39 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 16:54 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 21:20 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 16:45 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 17:15 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 17:42 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 21:18 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 21:06 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-15 21:46 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-15 23:08 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-16 01:26 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-15 18:22 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-15 18:48 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-15 18:40 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-15 10:09 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-15 11:07 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-15 12:11 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-15 12:30 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-15 12:41 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-15 13:04 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-15 14:26 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-19 10:00 -0700
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-13 12:46 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 13:19 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 13:30 +0100
Re: double free Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-07-13 20:53 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-13 21:37 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-13 05:22 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-13 07:07 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-14 19:31 +0100
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-14 12:10 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-14 23:16 +0100
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-14 16:00 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-14 12:34 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-14 20:57 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-14 13:15 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-14 21:27 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-14 21:31 +0100
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-18 09:46 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 13:32 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 13:46 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-19 06:00 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-19 09:23 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-19 09:38 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 17:51 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 18:22 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 09:02 +0000
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-19 11:42 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-19 12:27 -0700
Re: double free Philip Lantz <prl@canterey.us> - 2016-07-21 10:02 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-21 10:25 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-21 18:27 +0100
Re: double free Cal Dershowitz <cal@example.invalid> - 2016-07-29 00:42 -0700
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 08:59 +0000
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 15:22 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 15:59 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 16:39 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 16:55 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 17:49 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 18:20 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 19:03 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-19 19:22 +0100
sizeof (was Re: double free) Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2016-07-19 14:44 -0400
Re: sizeof (was Re: double free) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-19 12:31 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-19 22:46 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-19 15:19 -0700
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-20 00:21 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-23 19:21 +0000
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-19 12:08 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-19 09:41 -0700
Re: double free Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-07-21 18:10 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-22 11:23 +0100
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-22 03:40 -0700
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-22 10:33 -0700
Re: double free Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-07-22 12:47 -0700
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-12 22:18 +0000
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 10:53 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 21:20 +0100
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 13:56 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 22:39 +0100
Re: double free David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-07-12 10:57 +0200
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 21:58 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 13:23 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-11 13:00 +0000
Re: double free Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-07-11 10:44 -0700
Re: double free Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 19:10 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 20:22 +0100
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-11 21:11 +0100
Re: double free Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-07-11 21:49 +0100
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 22:01 +0100
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-11 09:09 -0400
Re: double free Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-07-11 14:16 +0100
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-15 13:51 +0000
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-15 12:04 -0400
Re: double free Jean-Marc Bourguet <jm@bourguet.org> - 2016-07-11 17:51 +0200
Re: double free raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-07-11 10:19 +0000
Re: double free Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2016-07-05 08:57 -0600
Re: double free James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-07-05 11:13 -0400
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-05 09:05 -0700
Re: double free G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 16:38 -0700
Re: double free G G <gdotone@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 16:34 -0700
Re: double free Nobody <nobody@nowhere.invalid> - 2016-07-06 04:10 +0100
Re: double free Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-05 21:27 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-06 02:53 -0700
Re: double free Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2016-07-06 06:09 -0700
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-07-06 07:53 -0700
Re: double free "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-07-06 01:25 -0700
Re: double free BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-07-06 11:12 +0100
Re: double free Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-27 09:52 -0800
Re: double free supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-27 10:05 -0800
Page 7 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 18 Next page →
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-18 18:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nmj35n$usb$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90521 |
On 18/07/2016 18:01, Tim Rentsch wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >> Are you suggesting that every C programmer ought to know the >> precedence levels of all ten binary operators? > > I would. And do. And happy to do it. If you can't take > the heat, stay out of the kitchen. So you don't care that other people may have trouble reading or maintaining your code? > (P.S. There are a lot more than ten.) I meant all ten precedence levels (of the binary operators). According to page 53 of K&R 2. Which also lists 18 binary operators in all. Presumably if the C designers had chosen to give each binary op its own precedence level, you wouldn't have thought that that was over the top; you would just have memorised all 18 instead?! (That table uses 'operator' to include constructs which can only broadly be called operators. But the set of binary ones are generally agreed to be actual operators.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-21 09:26 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <kfnzipbt0st.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #90525 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 18/07/2016 18:01, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> >>> Are you suggesting that every C programmer ought to know the >>> precedence levels of all ten binary operators? >> >> I would. And do. And happy to do it. If you can't take >> the heat, stay out of the kitchen. > > So you don't care that other people may have trouble reading or > maintaining your code? Broadly speaking there are two kinds of questions asked in usenet newgroups: those looking for an answer, and those looking for an argument. This question is a good example of the second kind. >> (P.S. There are a lot more than ten.) > > I meant all ten precedence levels (of the binary operators). I recommend to those who program (or who would program) in C that they learn the precedence of all the different forms of expression, both those for binary operators and those for other-than-binary operators.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-21 18:57 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nmr2ff$401$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90724 |
On 21/07/2016 17:26, Tim Rentsch wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >> On 18/07/2016 18:01, Tim Rentsch wrote: >>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>> >>>> Are you suggesting that every C programmer ought to know the >>>> precedence levels of all ten binary operators? >>> >>> I would. And do. And happy to do it. If you can't take >>> the heat, stay out of the kitchen. >> >> So you don't care that other people may have trouble reading or >> maintaining your code? > > Broadly speaking there are two kinds of questions asked in > usenet newgroups: those looking for an answer, and those > looking for an argument. This question is a good example > of the second kind. So you don't care. >>> (P.S. There are a lot more than ten.) >> >> I meant all ten precedence levels (of the binary operators). > > I recommend to those who program (or who would program) in C > that they learn the precedence of all the different forms of > expression, both those for binary operators and those for > other-than-binary operators. That's Tim's recommendation. Mine would be not to bother. There are far too many precedence levels, some appear arbitrary, and with one or two, even the designers have admitted they made a mistake. Just stick to the basic ones that everyone knows, and use parentheses for the rest. Then the code, especially algorithms, will be understood by more people, and the code will be more portable. -- bartc -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Udyant Wig <udyant.wig@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 23:41 +0530 |
| Message-ID | <nmtnkm$ere$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90733 |
On 07/21/2016 11:27 PM, BartC wrote: > There are far too many precedence levels, some appear arbitrary, and > with one or two, even the designers have admitted they made a mistake. > > Just stick to the basic ones that everyone knows, and use parentheses > for the rest. Then the code, especially algorithms, will be understood > by more people, and the code will be more portable. I can accept the argument for understanding, but could you explain how the parentheses would help portability? -- Udyant Wig
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 19:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nmtpp3$nga$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90800 |
On 22/07/2016 19:11, Udyant Wig wrote: > On 07/21/2016 11:27 PM, BartC wrote: >> There are far too many precedence levels, some appear arbitrary, and >> with one or two, even the designers have admitted they made a mistake. >> >> Just stick to the basic ones that everyone knows, and use parentheses >> for the rest. Then the code, especially algorithms, will be understood >> by more people, and the code will be more portable. > > I can accept the argument for understanding, but could you explain how > the parentheses would help portability? If you lift a fragment of code, or transcribe it to a different language, then you will have an easier time if it's like this: a << (b + c) than like this: a << b + c // which means the same as above in C because outside of C, '<<' may have a different precedence. It intuitively looks like the expression ought to be (a<<b)+c, and might actually be parsed like that in some languages (<< does the same job as multiply so it would sense to have the same precedence). Even in C, it will remove that possible misunderstanding. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 11:58 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <16b074c1-4f05-443f-9b9e-54d28910fb9d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #90805 |
On Friday, July 22, 2016 at 1:48:12 PM UTC-5, Bart wrote: > On 22/07/2016 19:11, Udyant Wig wrote: > > I can accept the argument for understanding, but could you explain how > > the parentheses would help portability? > > Even in C, it will remove that possible misunderstanding. While the Standard requires that warnings for things that are not constraint violations must not prevent a compliant implementation from executing any program that it would otherwise be required to run in defined fashion, many systems are configured to break the build on warnings (the Standard is not intended to prevent compilers from offering non-compliant modes as options). Unless one hyper-pedantically insists that compilers configured in that way aren't really "C compilers", adding parentheses will increase the fraction of C compilers that will run such code without modification.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 12:03 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln8twtijg6.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #90805 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 22/07/2016 19:11, Udyant Wig wrote:
>> On 07/21/2016 11:27 PM, BartC wrote:
>>> There are far too many precedence levels, some appear arbitrary, and
>>> with one or two, even the designers have admitted they made a mistake.
>>>
>>> Just stick to the basic ones that everyone knows, and use parentheses
>>> for the rest. Then the code, especially algorithms, will be understood
>>> by more people, and the code will be more portable.
>>
>> I can accept the argument for understanding, but could you explain how
>> the parentheses would help portability?
>
> If you lift a fragment of code, or transcribe it to a different
> language, then you will have an easier time if it's like this:
>
> a << (b + c)
>
> than like this:
>
> a << b + c // which means the same as above in C
>
> because outside of C, '<<' may have a different precedence.
I would use the parentheses there, because I agree with you that the
expression is clearer with them than without them. But not because
I'd be concerned about someone copying the code to a program written
in another language.
If you blindly copy C code to another language without checking that it
still means the same thing, that's not the fault of the author of the C
code.
> It intuitively looks like the expression ought to be (a<<b)+c, and might
> actually be parsed like that in some languages (<< does the same job as
> multiply so it would sense to have the same precedence).
>
> Even in C, it will remove that possible misunderstanding.
Do you know of a language that has a "<<" operator similar to C's, in
which the relative precedence of "<<" and "+" differs from C's?
--
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 | 2016-07-22 20:26 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nmts23$vsl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90807 |
On 22/07/2016 20:03, Keith Thompson wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> Even in C, it will remove that possible misunderstanding. > > Do you know of a language that has a "<<" operator similar to C's, in > which the relative precedence of "<<" and "+" differs from C's? I had a look here. It all looks a huge mess: https://rosettacode.org/wiki/Operator_precedence However, Pascal has one of the simplest set of precedences. There, shifts are the same level as all multiply and divide operators. In Algol 68, shifts are one level higher than multiply/divide, but that still means that a<<b+c means (a<<b)+c. Not that many will be using Algol 68 ... Many seem to have blindly followed the C model, while others appear to have no shift operators listed. (My own languages of course have always had <<,>> at same precedence as multiply and divide.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-22 13:12 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnvazxh1pb.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #90811 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 22/07/2016 20:03, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>> Even in C, it will remove that possible misunderstanding.
>>
>> Do you know of a language that has a "<<" operator similar to C's, in
>> which the relative precedence of "<<" and "+" differs from C's?
>
> I had a look here. It all looks a huge mess:
>
> https://rosettacode.org/wiki/Operator_precedence
>
> However, Pascal has one of the simplest set of precedences. There,
> shifts are the same level as all multiply and divide operators.
Interesting. (When I used Pascal, it didn't have shift operators.)
> In Algol 68, shifts are one level higher than multiply/divide, but
> that still means that a<<b+c means (a<<b)+c. Not that many will be
> using Algol 68 ...
>
> Many seem to have blindly followed the C model, while others appear to
> have no shift operators listed.
That's about what I expected. I'm mildly surprised that some languages
use the same operators with different precedence, but only mildly.
> (My own languages of course have always had <<,>> at same precedence
> as multiply and divide.)
I do think that giving the shift operators the same or similar
precedence as multiplication and division makes more sense than the way
C does it, though I don't feel strongly about it and I could easily
change my mind. One could make the counterargument that being
consistent with C is more important. I take no position one way or the
other.
Still, if I were taking an expression from a C program and dropping it
into a program in another language, I'd check it very carefully unless I
was quite sure that the other language has the same semantics and
precedence rules. But the need to do that kind of thing is so rare that
it doesn't influence how I write C.
--
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 | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 08:57 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5793313b.2453031@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #90807 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > > It intuitively looks like the expression ought to be (a<<b)+c, and might > > actually be parsed like that in some languages (<< does the same job as > > multiply so it would sense to have the same precedence). > > > > Even in C, it will remove that possible misunderstanding. > > Do you know of a language that has a "<<" operator similar to C's, in > which the relative precedence of "<<" and "+" differs from C's? No, but I know of at least one in which << has a different meaning from C's. It is _never_ wise to write code without thinking, so once again Bart is pretending problems with C that don't exist. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 10:21 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nmvcv1$511$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90831 |
On 23/07/2016 09:57, Richard Bos wrote: > Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > >> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >>> It intuitively looks like the expression ought to be (a<<b)+c, and might >>> actually be parsed like that in some languages (<< does the same job as >>> multiply so it would sense to have the same precedence). >>> >>> Even in C, it will remove that possible misunderstanding. >> >> Do you know of a language that has a "<<" operator similar to C's, in >> which the relative precedence of "<<" and "+" differs from C's? > > No, but I know of at least one in which << has a different meaning from > C's. > > It is _never_ wise to write code without thinking, so once again Bart is > pretending problems with C that don't exist. Some people are deluded. There /are/ more precedences than would be reasonable. There /is/ no earthly why <= and == need to have different precedences. And, while there might be a reason why &, ^ and | need to be all different (which I can't think of), there /isn't/ a good one why they all have to be lower than == and <=. (Which means that if (a&b != 0x800) doesn't do what you think.) We didn't want these poor decisions to leach into other languages, but that seems to have happened and thus perpetuate themselves. And one reason may well be to ensure that code translated from one to another that doesn't use parentheses will still work; another that someone needing to write in both languages doesn't have to remember different sets of precedences. So part of my aim was to isolate the idiosyncrasies of C as well as making code more obvious to more people. Naturally, the predictable reaction is that I'm an idiot who can't be bothered to learn the language! --
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 11:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87fur0acpk.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #90835 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: <snip> > Some people are deluded. There /are/ more precedences than would be > reasonable. There /is/ no earthly why <= and == need to have different > precedences. And, while there might be a reason why &, ^ and | need to > be all different (which I can't think of), there /isn't/ a good one > why they all have to be lower than == and <=. (Which means that if > (a&b != 0x800) doesn't do what you think.) I'm curious. If a significant number of people here (maybe all) posted their agreement to these complaints, would you stop moaning about C? In other words, what's the point of all these posts? Do you want to persuade people of the error of C's ways (and if so to what purpose)? Or maybe want to show how much better your choices would have been? Maybe you think that some of the people who will design the Next Big Thing in programming languages read c.l.c and will benefit from your steering them away these rocks? Or do you just enjoy a bit of dust up? It just seems like a very odd pastime. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 12:36 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nmvkrk$rtl$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90842 |
On 23/07/2016 11:08, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > <snip> >> Some people are deluded. There /are/ more precedences than would be >> reasonable. There /is/ no earthly why <= and == need to have different >> precedences. And, while there might be a reason why &, ^ and | need to >> be all different (which I can't think of), there /isn't/ a good one >> why they all have to be lower than == and <=. (Which means that if >> (a&b != 0x800) doesn't do what you think.) > > I'm curious. If a significant number of people here (maybe all) posted > their agreement to these complaints, would you stop moaning about C? In > other words, what's the point of all these posts? Do you want to > persuade people of the error of C's ways (and if so to what purpose)? > Or maybe want to show how much better your choices would have been? Well Tim Rentsch also has strong and sometimes unconventional views (despite saying that mine don't count as they are just my opinions!). It was him who recommended that people learn *all* the precedences implying that parentheses should not be used for clarity. That sounded too much like the school of thought that either programmers should be perfect, or they should give it up. I was putting the opposite view in this sub-thread. > Or do you just enjoy a bit of dust up? That too. Coming here is a diversion. (And political forums are becoming boring again in the UK after the last few weeks.) And admit that /you/ like sparring with Malcolm for example... -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 07:14 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <67848c8b-c327-47aa-924a-e8de0c6d28ce@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #90845 |
On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 12:36:28 PM UTC+1, Bart wrote: > > Well Tim Rentsch also has strong and sometimes unconventional views > (despite saying that mine don't count as they are just my opinions!). > > It was him who recommended that people learn *all* the precedences > implying that parentheses should not be used for clarity. That sounded > too much like the school of thought that either programmers should be > perfect, or they should give it up. > That's clear nonsense In some circumstances you can get away with not parenthising factors, but compilers will warn about unparenthesised boolean expressions containing mixtures of OR and AND. AND is intersection which is related to multiplication, whilst OR is union and related to addition, so they are given the same precedence rules. But not enough people are familiar with them for compiler writers to be happy, and they're probably right.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 16:41 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nn037c$bcq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90846 |
On 23/07/2016 15:14, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Saturday, July 23, 2016 at 12:36:28 PM UTC+1, Bart wrote: >> >> Well Tim Rentsch also has strong and sometimes unconventional views >> (despite saying that mine don't count as they are just my opinions!). >> >> It was him who recommended that people learn *all* the precedences >> implying that parentheses should not be used for clarity. That sounded >> too much like the school of thought that either programmers should be >> perfect, or they should give it up. >> > That's clear nonsense > > In some circumstances you can get away with not parenthising factors, > but compilers will warn about unparenthesised boolean expressions > containing mixtures of OR and AND. AND is intersection which is > related to multiplication, whilst OR is union and related to > addition, so they are given the same precedence rules. But not > enough people are familiar with them for compiler writers to be > happy, and they're probably right. AND and OR (ie. logical ops denoted by && and || in C) are usually a long way from multiply and divide. I see a 3-tier system: * Ordinary expressions consisting of terms joined with *, /, + and - ops: a+b*c * Relative ops (==,!=,<,<=,=>,>) used between ordinary expressions: a+b*c == d+e * Then logical ops AND and OR used to combine the results of relative ops: a+b*c == d+e AND f<g OR h==1 The first tier needs to be given higher precedence (just two levels needed), then the second tier (one level), followed by the third (two levels as AND is done first perhaps because of the connection with multiply as you suggest). Not only are there only 5 levels in total, but they are structured into 2, 1 and 2 making it even easier. Any odd operator just shares one of those five levels, mostly like one of the first two, as there is no advantage at all in their having their own level. (AND and OR tend also to use short-circuit evaluation to further set them apart.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 19:17 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <5793c28b.1316015@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #90845 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: > On 23/07/2016 11:08, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > > I'm curious. If a significant number of people here (maybe all) posted > > their agreement to these complaints, would you stop moaning about C? In > > other words, what's the point of all these posts? Do you want to > > persuade people of the error of C's ways (and if so to what purpose)? > > Or maybe want to show how much better your choices would have been? > > Well Tim Rentsch also has strong and sometimes unconventional views > (despite saying that mine don't count as they are just my opinions!). Yes, he does. But while I by no means always agree with him, he does provide his reasons beyond "I don't understand this, therefore C is wrong". Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 20:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87zip887kx.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #90845 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 23/07/2016 11:08, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> <snip>
>>> Some people are deluded. There /are/ more precedences than would be
>>> reasonable. There /is/ no earthly why <= and == need to have different
>>> precedences. And, while there might be a reason why &, ^ and | need to
>>> be all different (which I can't think of), there /isn't/ a good one
>>> why they all have to be lower than == and <=. (Which means that if
>>> (a&b != 0x800) doesn't do what you think.)
>>
>> I'm curious. If a significant number of people here (maybe all) posted
>> their agreement to these complaints, would you stop moaning about C? In
>> other words, what's the point of all these posts? Do you want to
>> persuade people of the error of C's ways (and if so to what purpose)?
>> Or maybe want to show how much better your choices would have been?
>
> Well Tim Rentsch also has strong and sometimes unconventional views
> (despite saying that mine don't count as they are just my opinions!).
>
> It was him who recommended that people learn *all* the precedences
> implying that parentheses should not be used for clarity. That sounded
> too much like the school of thought that either programmers should be
> perfect, or they should give it up.
>
> I was putting the opposite view in this sub-thread.
I'm going to leave this uncut without comment. Normally I don't do that
but I think it would look odd to remove it. I don't want to get drawn
further into the pros and cons of precedence levels.
>> Or do you just enjoy a bit of dust up?
>
> That too. Coming here is a diversion. (And political forums are
> becoming boring again in the UK after the last few weeks.)
That's what I thought. I'll try to keep that in mind.
> And admit that /you/ like sparring with Malcolm for example...
No, I don't think so. I like to make my opinion known when I think
someone is wrong, but the best possible outcome for me is silence from
that moment on. My heart sinks if I see a reply to a post of mine and I
hope it's one I can ignore (and not another error being pointed out, of
course). Second best: one where I can sign off with a "I think we've
made our positions clears" post. In my ideal Usenet, exchanges would
continue only while people where answering questions to further explain
their points of view. Sometimes that would result in a change of mind
("ah, I see what you mean now -- yes I agree") but when that does not
happen the topic should be dropped.
I could certainly increase the number of times I sit on my hands. Some
people seem to be able to post followups that look to me like they need
a reply more than the original, and I should take that to be a red-flag
more often than I do.
--
Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 12:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lntwfgf7zx.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #90845 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 23/07/2016 11:08, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>> <snip>
>>> Some people are deluded. There /are/ more precedences than would be
>>> reasonable. There /is/ no earthly why <= and == need to have different
>>> precedences. And, while there might be a reason why &, ^ and | need to
>>> be all different (which I can't think of), there /isn't/ a good one
>>> why they all have to be lower than == and <=. (Which means that if
>>> (a&b != 0x800) doesn't do what you think.)
Who has said that C *doesn't* have more precedences than would
be reasonable?
It is what it is. Some of the precedences are less than ideal;
Dennis Ritchie himself has expressed regret over some of them.
Having fewer and/or levels in a new language would be perfectly
reasonable.
But there is no way to change (or "fix" if you prefer) C's precedence
levels without breaking existing code.
You are arguing against a strawman. I recognize C's flaws (there
are *plenty* of things I would have done differently), but it's
more constructive to learn how C actually works.
>> I'm curious. If a significant number of people here (maybe all) posted
>> their agreement to these complaints, would you stop moaning about C? In
>> other words, what's the point of all these posts? Do you want to
>> persuade people of the error of C's ways (and if so to what purpose)?
>> Or maybe want to show how much better your choices would have been?
>
> Well Tim Rentsch also has strong and sometimes unconventional views
> (despite saying that mine don't count as they are just my opinions!).
>
> It was him who recommended that people learn *all* the precedences
> implying that parentheses should not be used for clarity. That sounded
> too much like the school of thought that either programmers should be
> perfect, or they should give it up.
I remember Tim saying that C programmers should learn all the
operator precedences. I agree with him in principle, but I confess I
don't remember them all myself, but I usually have a copy of N1570
open and I can check the table of contents of section 6.5 quickly
enough when I need to.
I do not recall Tim saying that this implies one should not use
parentheses for clarity. Do you?
It is entirely consistent to know all the precedence levels *and* use
extra parentheses for clarity in some cases.
[...]
--
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 | 2016-07-23 21:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nn0la6$8e5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #90867 |
On 23/07/2016 20:51, Keith Thompson wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > But there is no way to change (or "fix" if you prefer) C's precedence > levels without breaking existing code. My suggestion was to make use of the funny ones by ignoring the given precedences and forcing the meaning by using parentheses (or breaking up into multiple expressions). No fix to C needed and everyone will see exactly how something is evaluated. > You are arguing against a strawman. I recognize C's flaws (there > are *plenty* of things I would have done differently), but it's > more constructive to learn how C actually works. (As far as I was concerned, my own languages came first (from c. 1981 after encountering the classic ones - but not C - at college and from brief periods of work). Eventually I was delighted to be planning to move on to the famous C (part-forced by having to code for Win16) and let someone else have the headache of maintaining compilers. But after a few attempts, I realised I couldn't take to it; mine were better! (For actual coding and productivity. C was better in other regards, in that C compilers were more refined, they were starting to produce better code (this in mid-90s), there were myriad libraries with interfaces defined in C and so on.) I tried again nearly 20 years later and am now up to speed with C for the uses I put it to. However it is still fascinating how such a language, which looks like it was thrown together for a student project, has become so important and so ubiquitous. I'm jealous.. ) > I do not recall Tim saying that this implies one should not use > parentheses for clarity. Do you? He said (referring to knowing all binary op precedence levels): "I would. And do. And happy to do it. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen." So he knows exactly what every expression means, and suggests that only those who also know all the levels should be coding. So why would anyone need extra parentheses? Either something is already clear, or you shouldn't be programming. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-23 14:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lna8h8f414.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #90874 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 23/07/2016 20:51, Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
>> I do not recall Tim saying that this implies one should not use
>> parentheses for clarity. Do you?
>
> He said (referring to knowing all binary op precedence levels):
>
> "I would. And do. And happy to do it. If you can't take
> the heat, stay out of the kitchen."
>
> So he knows exactly what every expression means, and suggests that only
> those who also know all the levels should be coding. So why would anyone
> need extra parentheses? Either something is already clear, or you
> shouldn't be programming.
Was that intended to answer my question? I believe you are inferring
things he didn't say.
--
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 7 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 5 6 [7] 8 9 … 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web