Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #10412 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-09-18 00:29 +0200 |
| Last post | 2011-09-20 00:22 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 284 — 42 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-18 00:29 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Harald van Dijk <truedfx@gmail.com> - 2011-09-17 15:38 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-18 00:57 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-18 16:30 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-18 19:25 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-19 07:53 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-18 20:00 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-19 08:23 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-18 20:32 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-18 23:28 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-09-18 16:38 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 04:27 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-09-18 21:48 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 05:38 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 09:14 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-19 10:10 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-19 05:07 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-19 14:24 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 16:10 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-19 16:50 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-09-19 08:11 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 17:21 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-19 16:27 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-19 10:14 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-19 19:56 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-09-19 13:20 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-20 18:31 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-20 17:44 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-20 17:06 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-21 01:37 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-22 22:03 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-28 02:33 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 13:01 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 14:42 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-20 10:08 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 07:55 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 16:39 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-09-19 09:48 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 12:49 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 22:45 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 14:02 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-19 07:14 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 16:13 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-19 17:36 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 20:09 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 20:36 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-20 08:05 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 20:18 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-09-19 23:37 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-21 12:23 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-21 12:09 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid websnarf <websnarf@gmail.com> - 2011-09-26 22:01 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-19 13:51 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 20:11 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-09-19 22:21 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-20 00:05 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-09-18 23:34 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2011-09-18 22:47 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2011-09-19 04:50 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-19 13:42 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 20:30 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-20 08:09 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 22:38 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-09-19 20:50 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 22:53 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-19 22:30 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-20 00:05 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-20 00:31 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-09-19 22:43 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-20 00:59 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-20 11:50 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-09-19 19:03 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-20 14:11 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-19 21:49 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-28 06:17 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-28 07:02 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ike Naar <ike@sverige.freeshell.org> - 2011-09-20 07:26 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-21 12:31 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-21 12:26 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-21 21:20 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-21 19:40 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-22 07:46 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "Rosario Pulvirenti" <NoInUseno1Spam@non.usare.invalid> - 2011-09-22 07:38 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-20 09:05 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-20 07:16 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-20 09:50 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-20 10:38 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-20 04:29 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-20 12:04 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-20 05:25 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-20 16:49 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-22 22:35 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-23 07:59 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-23 12:33 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-23 12:23 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-23 17:34 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-23 17:08 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-23 06:49 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-23 12:20 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-09-26 22:59 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-09-30 01:27 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-30 08:38 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-10-04 12:40 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-21 12:00 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-21 21:17 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-18 23:21 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-18 17:32 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Joe Wright <joewwright@comcast.net> - 2011-09-18 23:10 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-19 03:34 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-09-18 22:32 -0600
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-20 14:18 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 18:15 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-20 17:49 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-20 17:02 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-20 20:35 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-09-20 20:30 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-20 22:35 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-22 22:07 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-22 16:11 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-23 12:28 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-23 06:44 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-23 17:33 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-23 11:31 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-23 20:09 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-23 20:02 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-23 13:49 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-24 09:01 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-23 23:08 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-24 09:43 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-23 22:13 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-23 23:45 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-24 00:01 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-24 09:47 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-23 17:22 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-23 23:47 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-24 09:50 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-23 18:06 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-24 10:25 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-24 08:02 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-24 14:13 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-24 14:07 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-24 13:15 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-24 15:20 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-24 11:28 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-24 15:45 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-24 20:07 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-09-24 14:31 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-24 21:49 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-24 14:40 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-25 01:14 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-01-24 13:44 -0800
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-09-24 20:23 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-24 18:44 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-25 07:04 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-24 17:30 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-24 12:34 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-25 01:00 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-25 21:30 +1300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-25 05:08 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-26 08:39 +1300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-24 20:04 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-23 17:09 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-23 23:43 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-09-27 20:48 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-10-03 19:59 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-10-03 17:32 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-24 13:53 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 21:18 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-20 20:35 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-20 22:45 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-21 08:09 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-09-22 13:04 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-22 11:38 -0500
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-09-23 10:41 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-22 22:20 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-22 22:15 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-23 12:30 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-09-26 22:59 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-27 02:06 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-27 03:39 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "Rosario Pulvirenti" <NoInUseno1Spam@non.usare.invalid> - 2011-10-03 19:51 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-03 19:11 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "Rosario Pulvirenti" <NoInUseno1Spam@non.usare.invalid> - 2011-10-04 16:20 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid China Blue Corn Chips <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-10-04 08:11 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-04 12:19 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-27 13:56 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-27 13:13 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-27 12:08 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-29 01:00 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 21:59 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-22 22:08 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-20 17:00 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 20:32 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-20 18:53 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 22:55 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 21:50 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-21 15:48 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-21 16:12 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-21 09:42 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-21 18:01 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 21:00 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 21:32 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-22 12:40 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-22 13:00 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-22 14:54 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-22 14:03 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-22 11:39 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-24 13:44 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-24 12:23 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-29 04:52 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-29 04:51 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-20 19:32 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 22:48 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-20 17:29 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 23:45 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-21 10:35 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-29 05:04 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-29 04:54 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-20 17:19 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 23:26 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-21 14:35 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-22 00:09 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-21 19:08 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-21 05:25 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 21:11 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 23:01 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-21 03:11 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-21 12:16 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-21 03:23 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 20:44 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 22:53 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-21 23:08 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-21 21:14 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-22 07:17 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-22 16:37 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-22 16:25 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-22 11:36 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-24 13:37 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-24 13:50 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-24 14:47 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-24 20:43 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-24 20:26 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-09-24 20:53 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-25 02:30 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-09-24 22:24 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-25 12:36 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-21 13:56 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "Rosario Pulvirenti" <NoInUseno1Spam@non.usare.invalid> - 2011-09-22 07:38 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-22 02:06 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-22 15:24 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-22 11:35 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-24 13:25 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-09-26 22:59 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-01-24 13:30 -0800
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-09-22 18:23 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-21 15:40 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 20:20 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-19 06:39 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-19 10:06 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-20 07:03 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-09-19 19:17 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 20:57 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 05:14 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-19 18:02 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 06:18 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 17:50 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 20:45 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-28 08:05 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-28 09:14 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-18 23:52 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 20:45 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 23:35 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 19:53 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-17 23:54 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-18 00:59 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Heikki Kallasjoki <fis+usenet@zem.fi> - 2011-09-17 23:35 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-18 01:47 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-09-17 17:15 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Максим Фомин <maxim@maxim-fomin.ru> - 2011-09-18 00:43 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "Rosario Pulvirenti" <NoInUseno1Spam@non.usare.invalid> - 2011-09-18 10:34 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "Rosario Pulvirenti" <NoInUseno1Spam@non.usare.invalid> - 2011-09-20 09:28 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-09-18 12:55 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "Joel C. Salomon" <joelcsalomon@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 10:29 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid China Blue Corn Chips <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-20 00:22 -0700
Page 11 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 15 Next page →
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-21 21:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4e7a426a$0$24696$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #10645 |
Kenny McCormack wrote: > The primary goal of the computer industry over the past 50 years has been > to make it impossible for programmers to make mistakes. I.e., to reduce > the art of programming down to the level of flipping burgers at McDonalds > (and at comparable pay). > > They have almost succeeded. And will do any day now... This isn't necessarily a bad goal, provided that those who invest their time and energy in it try to reach it by developing their own tools. If, on the other hand, they try to reach their goal by attempting to "dumb down" and corrupt widely established and successful tools to the point their usefulness can be put into question then we have a problem. It would be like complaining that construction work can be unsafe for the general, untrained public and then trying to make it safe by imposing rules such as forcing all caterpillar trucks to be made out of spongy foam. This "C is unsafe because I can write broken code which refers to non- existing objects" issue, to me, fits this category. Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-21 21:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <j5de4s$8l7$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #10604 |
On 2011-09-20 22:50, Rui Maciel wrote: > If a tool is used contrary to how it was > designed to be used and in ways which are considered to be dangerous and an > obvious source of problems then this isn't an issue of whether a specific > feature is safe or unsafe. The real issue is whether the programmer > actually knows what he is doing. If the programmer doesn't know what he is > doing then, no matter how "safe" that language is, the programmer will > always find ways to screw things up. To me this is the typical macho programmer attitude. We all know that every programmer makes mistakes every now and then. What sets a safe programming language apart from an unsafe language is that a program written in the former is not allowed to proceed executing once it enters an ill-defined state. This prevents data corruption and makes the error *much* easier to find. August -- The competent programmer is fully aware of the limited size of his own skull. He therefore approaches his task with full humility, and avoids clever tricks like the plague. --Edsger Dijkstra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-22 12:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4e7b1ec6$0$16753$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #10673 |
August Karlstrom wrote: > To me this is the typical macho programmer attitude. We all know that > every programmer makes mistakes every now and then. What sets a safe > programming language apart from an unsafe language is that a program > written in the former is not allowed to proceed executing once it enters > an ill-defined state. This prevents data corruption and makes the error > much easier to find. This has absolutely nothing to do with "macho programmer attitude", whatever that is. If a person is employed as a technician, or at least intends to do work in that field, then the least that person is expected to do is to have a rudimentary understanding of how the tools of the trade work and what are the proper ways of using them. If the would-be technician fails to have a basic understanding how his tools of the trade work then he simply cannot shift the blame of writing broken code anywhere else beyond his failure of attaining a basic understanding on how his tools of the trade work, which includes accusing the tool of being unsafe. In this case, you tried to claim that C is unsafe by presenting code which was broken by violating a very basic aspect of how C works, one which is taught at the very beginning of any introductory course. Yet, even though the problem with your example lies precisely in an inability to write valid code, you tried to pass it off as a fundamental problem affecting the entire programming language. This isn't a sensible thing to do. If you actually cared for that problem then you would had invested time to try to understand what were it's causes. This would quickly lead you to the way an object's lifetime is defined in the C programming language, which would be enough to understand that the problem resided in the code and not the language. You could also come to the conclusion that failing to throw a warning when a local variable is referenced beyond it's life time, or running similar diagnostics, is a compiler issue, not a language issue. This is something which has been done before[1]. Yet, you failed to consider any of this options and instead you opted to accuse the language of, in a way, being fundamentally broken. This is a problem caused by nothing more than a willingness to shift blame and responsibilities, not by "typical macho programmer attitude", and throwing baseless accusations around does nothing to fix whatever problem there may exist. Rui Maciel [1] http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14156
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-22 13:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <j5fbhr$a0h$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #10698 |
In article <4e7b1ec6$0$16753$a729d347@news.telepac.pt>,
Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> wrote:
>August Karlstrom wrote:
>
>> To me this is the typical macho programmer attitude. We all know that
>> every programmer makes mistakes every now and then. What sets a safe
>> programming language apart from an unsafe language is that a program
>> written in the former is not allowed to proceed executing once it enters
>> an ill-defined state. This prevents data corruption and makes the error
>> much easier to find.
>
>This has absolutely nothing to do with "macho programmer attitude", whatever
>that is.
This is is priceless. I've seen this sort of phrase a lot lately (on Usenet).
Hint: If you don't know what something is, you can hardly make any
statements about it - including the statement of denial (as above).
>If a person is employed as a technician, or at least intends to do
>work in that field, then the least that person is expected to do is to have
You need to go back and re-read what I wrote about dynamite.
Again, no one is saying that "unsafe" == bad.
--
Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is
no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof.
- John Kenneth Galbraith -
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-22 14:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4e7b3e05$0$16760$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #10701 |
Kenny McCormack wrote: > In article <4e7b1ec6$0$16753$a729d347@news.telepac.pt>, > Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> wrote: >>August Karlstrom wrote: >> >>> To me this is the typical macho programmer attitude. We all know that >>> every programmer makes mistakes every now and then. What sets a safe >>> programming language apart from an unsafe language is that a program >>> written in the former is not allowed to proceed executing once it enters >>> an ill-defined state. This prevents data corruption and makes the error >>> much easier to find. >> >>This has absolutely nothing to do with "macho programmer attitude", >>whatever that is. > > This is is priceless. I've seen this sort of phrase a lot lately (on > Usenet). > > Hint: If you don't know what something is, you can hardly make any > statements about it - including the statement of denial (as above). You failed to understand what I said. Please read what I've posted in the message you replied to. >>If a person is employed as a technician, or at least intends to do >>work in that field, then the least that person is expected to do is to >>have > > You need to go back and re-read what I wrote about dynamite. I've already read it. It was a silly comment. > Again, no one is saying that "unsafe" == bad. If you read what has been said you will realize that the problem with this assertion is that a piece of broken code is being presented as an example of how C is supposed to be "unsafe". It's broken code, which a compiler should consider to be an error or at least throw a warning, something which some compilers actually do. An entire programming language isn't suddenly deemed "unsafe" if a compiler fails to run a diagnostic on a specific source of problems. Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-22 14:03 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <j5ff7j$a0h$3@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #10703 |
In article <4e7b3e05$0$16760$a729d347@news.telepac.pt>, Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> wrote a bunch of silly non-sequitors: ... >If you read what has been said you will realize that the problem with this >assertion is that a piece of broken code is being presented as an example of >how C is supposed to be "unsafe". It's broken code, which a compiler should >consider to be an error or at least throw a warning, something which some >compilers actually do. An entire programming language isn't suddenly deemed >"unsafe" if a compiler fails to run a diagnostic on a specific source of >problems. Well, I guess we're just not ever going to go to the prom together. -- "The anti-regulation business ethos is based on the charmingly naive notion that people will not do unspeakable things for money." - Dana Carpender Quoted by Paul Ciszek (pciszek at panix dot com). But what I want to know is why is this diet/low-carb food author doing making pithy political/economic statements? Nevertheless, the above quote is dead-on, because, the thing is - business in one breath tells us they don't need to be regulated (which is to say: that they can morally self-regulate), then in the next breath tells us that corporations are amoral entities which have no obligations to anyone except their officers and shareholders, then in the next breath they tell us they don't need to be regulated (that they can morally self-regulate) ...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-22 11:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnvcsk2zi1.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #10703 |
Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> writes:
[...]
> If you read what has been said you will realize that the problem with this
> assertion is that a piece of broken code is being presented as an example of
> how C is supposed to be "unsafe". It's broken code, which a compiler should
> consider to be an error or at least throw a warning, something which some
> compilers actually do. An entire programming language isn't suddenly deemed
> "unsafe" if a compiler fails to run a diagnostic on a specific source of
> problems.
I'd say that a language that doesn't require a diagnostic for a
particular error is less "safe" than a language that does. It's true
that a particular compiler might warn about it, but that's about the
safety of the compiler, not of the language.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-24 13:44 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4e7dd09c$0$16761$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #10718 |
Keith Thompson wrote: > I'd say that a language that doesn't require a diagnostic for a > particular error is less "safe" than a language that does. It's true > that a particular compiler might warn about it, but that's about the > safety of the compiler, not of the language. The language is still the same, no matter what tricks compiler writers might have implemented in a specific compiler. If a specific issue, which is caused by a programmer expressly writing broken code, has safety implications and if some compiler implementations are able to diagnose that error and warn the programmer about it then it isn't reasonable to accuse the language of being unsafe. Doing this would be shifting the blame from the programmer to the tools which he employs, and this does nothing to solve the real source of this problem. Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-24 12:23 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnmxdt3ftu.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #10854 |
Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> writes:
> Keith Thompson wrote:
>> I'd say that a language that doesn't require a diagnostic for a
>> particular error is less "safe" than a language that does. It's true
>> that a particular compiler might warn about it, but that's about the
>> safety of the compiler, not of the language.
>
> The language is still the same, no matter what tricks compiler writers might
> have implemented in a specific compiler.
No, the language is *not* the same.
Note that I'm not specifically talking about C here. Of two
otherwise identical hypothetical languages, if language X *doesn't*
require a diagnostic for a particular error, and language Y
*does* require such a diagnostic, then language Y is safer than
language X. I explicitly said that this is a difference in the
language definitions, not in some particular implementation of
either language.
It may well be that some implementation of language X issues the
diagnostic anyway, then that particular implementation is as safe
as an implementation of language Y -- but that's not what I was
referring to. (And even in that case, other implementations of
language X aren't going to issue the diagnostic.)
> If a specific issue, which is
> caused by a programmer expressly writing broken code, has safety
> implications and if some compiler implementations are able to diagnose that
> error and warn the programmer about it then it isn't reasonable to accuse
> the language of being unsafe. Doing this would be shifting the blame from
> the programmer to the tools which he employs, and this does nothing to solve
> the real source of this problem.
Do you deny the possibility that *any* of the blame can be attributed
to the tools?
Some tools are safer than others. A skilled craftsman can probably
use relatively unsafe tools more safely than an unskilled craftsman
(and nobody here has denied that), but sometimes the tools are
partly to blame. If I drive a nail using a hammer that occasionally
shatters on impact, it's not just my fault for using it incorrectly
(though it might be partly my fault for not choosing a better hammer).
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-29 04:52 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0b074f78-f9ab-45da-82b1-be580c04e50d@j20g2000vby.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #10701 |
On Sep 22, 2:00 pm, gaze...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote: > In article <4e7b1ec6$0$16753$a729d...@news.telepac.pt>, > Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >August Karlstrom wrote: > > >> To me this is the typical macho programmer attitude. We all know that > >> every programmer makes mistakes every now and then. What sets a safe > >> programming language apart from an unsafe language is that a program > >> written in the former is not allowed to proceed executing once it enters > >> an ill-defined state. This prevents data corruption and makes the error > >> much easier to find. > > >This has absolutely nothing to do with "macho programmer attitude", whatever > >that is. > > This is is priceless. I've seen this sort of phrase a lot lately (on Usenet). > > Hint: If you don't know what something is, you can hardly make any > statements about it - including the statement of denial (as above). > > >If a person is employed as a technician, or at least intends to do > >work in that field, then the least that person is expected to do is to have > > You need to go back and re-read what I wrote about dynamite. > > Again, no one is saying that "unsafe" == bad. AOL- me too
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-29 04:51 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <0b57adc3-33d4-4e02-b5d3-51e2e32174dc@i30g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #10698 |
On Sep 22, 12:40 pm, Rui Maciel <rui.mac...@gmail.com> wrote: > August Karlstrom wrote: > > To me this is the typical macho programmer attitude. We all know that > > every programmer makes mistakes every now and then. What sets a safe > > programming language apart from an unsafe language is that a program > > written in the former is not allowed to proceed executing once it enters > > an ill-defined state. This prevents data corruption and makes the error > > much easier to find. > > This has absolutely nothing to do with "macho programmer attitude", whatever > that is. If a person is employed as a technician, or at least intends to do > work in that field, then the least that person is expected to do is to have > a rudimentary understanding of how the tools of the trade work and what are > the proper ways of using them. If the would-be technician fails to have a > basic understanding how his tools of the trade work then he simply cannot > shift the blame of writing broken code anywhere else beyond his failure of > attaining a basic understanding on how his tools of the trade work, where I come from there is an aphorism "A bad workman blames his tools". personnally I think this is slightly flawed. A good workman makes sure he has the best tools. he can *manage* with poor tools, better than the bad workman. But he knows his tools are inadequate. > which includes accusing the tool of being unsafe. it isn't a pejorative term. C, by design, gives you less protection than some languages. > In this case, you tried to claim that C is unsafe by presenting code which > was broken by violating a very basic aspect of how C works, one which is > taught at the very beginning of any introductory course. Yet, even though > the problem with your example lies precisely in an inability to write valid > code, you tried to pass it off as a fundamental problem affecting the entire > programming language. This isn't a sensible thing to do. > > If you actually cared for that problem then you would had invested time to > try to understand what were [its] causes. This would quickly lead you to the > way an object's lifetime is defined in the C programming language, which > would be enough to understand that the problem resided in the code and not > the language. You could also come to the conclusion that failing to throw a > warning when a local variable is referenced beyond it's life time, or > running similar diagnostics, is a compiler issue, not a language issue. > This is something which has been done before[1]. Yet, you failed to > consider any of this options and instead you opted to accuse the language > of, in a way, being fundamentally broken. This is a problem caused by > nothing more than a willingness to shift blame and responsibilities, not by > "typical macho programmer attitude", and throwing baseless accusations > around does nothing to fix whatever problem there may exist. > > [1]http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14156 I'd have snipped the above if you din't moan about snipping
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-20 19:32 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnj7hqir.2rss.willem@toad.stack.nl> |
| In reply to | #10587 |
August Karlstrom wrote:
) On 2011-09-20 19:00, Willem wrote:
)> August Karlstrom wrote:
)> Or not. Depending on the language. Which was the point. Duh.
)
) Could you describe the semantics of scope and and lifetimes of variables
) in such a language or do you know of an actual language where the above
) code would make sense?
Yes. A variable lives as long as there are pointers to it.
For languages, Any language that does GC will do. I read crossthread
there's even a C dialect that does it. C# probably, haven't really
done much in that. Perl for sure.
SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-20 22:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <j5au6d$hm2$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #10591 |
On 2011-09-20 21:32, Willem wrote: > August Karlstrom wrote: > ) Could you describe the semantics of scope and and lifetimes of variables > ) in such a language or do you know of an actual language where the above > ) code would make sense? > > Yes. A variable lives as long as there are pointers to it. How can a local variable live after the function has returned? > For languages, Any language that does GC will do. But a garbage collector handles dynamically allocated objects, not local variables. August -- The competent programmer is fully aware of the limited size of his own skull. He therefore approaches his task with full humility, and avoids clever tricks like the plague. --Edsger Dijkstra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-20 17:29 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <j5b0k6$3j0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #10602 |
On 09/20/2011 04:48 PM, August Karlstrom wrote:
> On 2011-09-20 21:32, Willem wrote:
>> August Karlstrom wrote:
>> ) Could you describe the semantics of scope and and lifetimes of variables
>> ) in such a language or do you know of an actual language where the above
>> ) code would make sense?
>>
>> Yes. A variable lives as long as there are pointers to it.
>
> How can a local variable live after the function has returned?
By not being local in the sense that you mean it. Imagine a language where
T *x;
void f(void)
{
T y;
x = &y;
}
Is treated as specifying the equivalent of C code like the following:
T *x;
void f(void)
{
T *py = gc_malloc(sizeof *py);
x = py;
}
where gc_malloc() is a allocator for a garbage-collected memory.
In that language, 'y' is treated as roughly the equivalent of the C
expression *py, and is local only in the sense that it's scope is
restricted to the body of f(). Under normal circumstances, it would be
garbage-collected shortly after exiting that scope. However, since the
pointer escapes the body of f(), the object 'y' designates will continue
to exist long after 'y' has gone out of scope.
>> For languages, Any language that does GC will do.
>
> But a garbage collector handles dynamically allocated objects, not local
> variables.
That's not necessarily the case.
--
James Kuyper
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-20 23:45 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <j5b1i6$9hs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #10609 |
On 2011-09-20 23:29, James Kuyper wrote:
> By not being local in the sense that you mean it. Imagine a language where
>
> T *x;
>
> void f(void)
> {
> T y;
>
> x =&y;
> }
>
> Is treated as specifying the equivalent of C code like the following:
>
> T *x;
>
> void f(void)
> {
> T *py = gc_malloc(sizeof *py);
> x = py;
> }
In my example the basic assumption was that y is *not* a pointer.
Otherwise your example makes sense.
August
--
The competent programmer is fully aware of the limited size of his own
skull. He therefore approaches his task with full humility, and avoids
clever tricks like the plague. --Edsger Dijkstra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-21 10:35 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4E79F615.2080009@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #10611 |
On 09/20/2011 05:45 PM, August Karlstrom wrote:
> On 2011-09-20 23:29, James Kuyper wrote:
>> By not being local in the sense that you mean it. Imagine a language where
>>
>> T *x;
>>
>> void f(void)
>> {
>> T y;
>>
>> x =&y;
>> }
>>
>> Is treated as specifying the equivalent of C code like the following:
>>
>> T *x;
>>
>> void f(void)
>> {
>> T *py = gc_malloc(sizeof *py);
>> x = py;
>> }
>
> In my example the basic assumption was that y is *not* a pointer.
> Otherwise your example makes sense.
As far as this hypothetical language (which doesn't seem so hypothetical
now that I've seen other people cite similar real ones) is concerned,
'y' is not a pointer, it's an object. py represents a hidden
implementation detail which cannot be accessed directly, but only by use
of the construct '&y'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-29 05:04 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <865c3b7f-714f-468a-aa5e-09ff78dd08c7@q25g2000vbx.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #10642 |
On Sep 21, 3:35 pm, James Kuyper <jameskuy...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 09/20/2011 05:45 PM, August Karlstrom wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 2011-09-20 23:29, James Kuyper wrote:
> >> By not being local in the sense that you mean it. Imagine a language where
>
> >> T *x;
>
> >> void f(void)
> >> {
> >> T y;
>
> >> x =&y;
> >> }
>
> >> Is treated as specifying the equivalent of C code like the following:
>
> >> T *x;
>
> >> void f(void)
> >> {
> >> T *py = gc_malloc(sizeof *py);
> >> x = py;
> >> }
>
> > In my example the basic assumption was that y is *not* a pointer.
> > Otherwise your example makes sense.
>
> As far as this hypothetical language (which doesn't seem so hypothetical
> now that I've seen other people cite similar real ones)
my thoughts were of scheme
(define (f)
(let ((y '(red blue green))) ; 'local' variable
(set! x y) ))
(define x 0)
(display x)
(f)
(display x)
--
displays: 0 (red blue green)
It could be argued that is simply an assignment but the rbg list is
the nearest schem has to a data structure. And more complex examples
would show you can hack 'local' variables outside of the function. And
even re-enter the function!
> is concerned,
> 'y' is not a pointer, it's an object. py represents a hidden
> implementation detail which cannot be accessed directly, but only by use
> of the construct '&y'.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-29 04:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <33731623-9e54-48c2-a014-cad7e15efbe8@i9g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #10602 |
On Sep 20, 9:48 pm, August Karlstrom <fusionf...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2011-09-20 21:32, Willem wrote: > > > August Karlstrom wrote: > > ) Could you describe the semantics of scope and and lifetimes of variables > > ) in such a language or do you know of an actual language where the above > > ) code would make sense? > > > Yes. A variable lives as long as there are pointers to it. > > How can a local variable live after the function has returned? in some languages everything is (potentially) dynamic. Something that was created locally may be returned. > > For languages, Any language that does GC will do. > > But a garbage collector handles dynamically allocated objects, not local > variables. not all languages distinguish them in the same way.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-20 17:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln1uva691y.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org> |
| In reply to | #10587 |
August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> writes:
> On 2011-09-20 19:00, Willem wrote:
>> August Karlstrom wrote:
>> ) A language with an "address of" operator cannot be safe as is
>> ) illustrated by the following example:
>> )
>> ) T *x;
>> )
>> ) void f(void)
>> ) {
>> ) T y;
>> )
>> ) x =&y;
>> ) }
>> )
>> ) After calling f, x is invalid.
>>
>> Or not. Depending on the language. Which was the point. Duh.
>
> Could you describe the semantics of scope and and lifetimes of variables
> in such a language or do you know of an actual language where the above
> code would make sense?
Yes, Perl:
====================
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
sub func1 {
my $local1 = 42; # "my" creates a lexical variable
return $local1;
}
sub func2 {
my $local2 = 43;
return \$local2;
}
my $var1 = func1();
print '$var1 = ', $var1, "\n";
my $var2 = func2();
print '$var2 = ', $var2, " (a reference)\n";
print '$$var2 = ', $$var2, " (dereferencing \$var2)\n";
====================
Output:
$var1 = 42
$var2 = SCALAR(0x83f9f70) (a reference)
$$var2 = 43 (dereferencing $var2)
func1 simply declares a local variable, initializes it to 42, and
returns its value. The variable ceases to exist when func1 returns,
just as it would in C.
func2 declares a local variable and initializes it to 43, but it
returns a *reference* to it. The variable itself continues to exist
as long as the reference exists, even though the function in which
it was lexically declared has returned.
C doesn't support this kind of thing. (Well, not directly; Perl
is implemented in C.)
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-21 23:26 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <j5dkq3$pmj$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #10618 |
On 2011-09-21 02:19, Keith Thompson wrote:
> August Karlstrom<fusionfile@gmail.com> writes:
>> Could you describe the semantics of scope and and lifetimes of variables
>> in such a language or do you know of an actual language where the above
>> code would make sense?
[...]
> sub func2 {
> my $local2 = 43;
> return \$local2;
> }
[...]
> func2 declares a local variable and initializes it to 43, but it
> returns a *reference* to it. The variable itself continues to exist
> as long as the reference exists, even though the function in which
> it was lexically declared has returned.
OK, strange, but then $local2 cannot be a usual local (lexical) variable
put on the usual call stack. There must be something else going on in
the background.
August
--
The competent programmer is fully aware of the limited size of his own
skull. He therefore approaches his task with full humility, and avoids
clever tricks like the plague. --Edsger Dijkstra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 11 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 9 10 [11] 12 13 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web