Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #106814 > unrolled thread
| Started by | acidlategamer@gmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-03-23 09:56 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-03-23 19:02 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 213 — 32 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault acidlategamer@gmail.com - 2017-03-23 09:56 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 18:04 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-23 17:07 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault acidlategamer@gmail.com - 2017-03-23 10:36 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault acidlategamer@gmail.com - 2017-03-23 10:42 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-23 18:52 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-03-23 12:54 -0600
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 00:02 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-03-23 17:16 -0600
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 00:32 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-03-23 11:57 -0600
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault acidlategamer@gmail.com - 2017-03-23 11:23 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-03-23 12:53 -0600
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-23 19:00 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-23 15:59 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-23 20:40 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-23 22:06 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-23 20:43 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-24 14:09 +1300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-23 21:28 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-24 14:33 +1300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 09:23 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-25 08:39 +1300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 20:40 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-03-23 19:48 -0600
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2017-03-24 13:32 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 20:42 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-17 06:30 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-03-23 19:29 -0600
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-24 10:10 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 09:26 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-24 13:52 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 10:30 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-24 14:37 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 12:51 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-24 18:05 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 15:09 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 12:55 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-03-24 09:45 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 12:52 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-03-24 10:10 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-24 18:48 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-24 14:04 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-24 19:16 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-24 15:10 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-24 15:17 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-25 00:49 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-24 21:10 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-25 02:37 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-24 21:45 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-03-25 15:58 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-24 12:44 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-24 12:07 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-25 00:54 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-03-25 10:16 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-25 12:32 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-25 15:17 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-25 16:32 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-25 10:15 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-25 14:07 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-25 18:23 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-03-25 18:48 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2017-03-25 23:22 +0300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-03-25 20:47 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2017-03-26 15:56 +0300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-03-26 18:13 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-26 17:03 +0200
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-25 21:16 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-03-25 21:28 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-25 19:16 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-26 08:53 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-26 02:39 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> - 2017-03-26 11:54 +0200
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-26 22:57 +1300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-27 08:18 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-03-26 11:37 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-27 08:19 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-03-27 21:53 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-27 16:22 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-27 08:18 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-27 08:49 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-27 16:57 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-03-27 18:19 +0200
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-27 17:47 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-27 09:27 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-03-27 17:56 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2017-04-01 12:42 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-27 09:36 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-27 17:51 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-27 13:59 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-27 19:00 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-27 15:13 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-27 20:05 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-03-27 13:14 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-03-27 21:28 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-27 16:21 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-28 13:44 +1300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-28 08:39 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-03 17:36 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-03 14:02 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-14 11:24 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-04-14 18:39 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-14 14:38 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-22 21:06 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-04-23 17:38 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2017-04-14 13:54 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-14 14:36 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-16 19:08 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-26 17:11 +0200
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-27 08:23 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-27 10:27 +0200
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-27 10:22 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-27 15:01 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-27 18:19 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-27 12:37 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-27 15:40 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-27 21:28 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-27 22:27 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-27 23:37 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-28 08:33 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-28 11:21 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-28 15:38 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault jm.bourguet@gmail.com - 2017-03-28 09:03 -0700
Re: Readabilty of "3 == x" (was: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-28 09:20 -0700
Re: Readabilty of "3 == x" Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-28 18:55 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-28 18:49 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-28 14:53 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-03-28 15:19 -0500
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-02 12:49 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-04-03 17:19 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-04-03 21:44 +0200
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-04-03 15:05 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault jacobnavia <jacob@jacob.remcomp.fr> - 2017-04-04 01:19 +0200
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-04 00:49 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2017-04-03 18:22 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-04-04 06:38 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-03-29 00:16 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-29 00:26 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Alla <vitale.alla@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 12:34 +0300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-28 13:28 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-03-28 07:04 -0600
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-28 14:38 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-28 10:55 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault jadill33@gmail.com - 2017-03-28 07:27 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-28 07:58 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-28 16:13 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Alla <vitale.alla@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 18:49 +0300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-28 09:15 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-28 18:53 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-28 18:12 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-28 11:51 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-28 19:59 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Alla <vitale.alla@gmail.com> - 2017-03-28 23:11 +0300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Alla <vitale.alla@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 17:20 +0300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-01 08:58 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-04-01 18:41 +0200
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-01 11:37 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Alla <vitale.alla@gmail.com> - 2017-04-02 22:43 +0300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-03 08:47 +0200
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-26 07:58 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-03-25 19:35 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-03-25 21:37 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-26 08:39 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-03-25 21:21 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2017-03-25 16:54 -0500
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-03-25 22:32 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-26 13:46 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-03 17:39 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-03 11:42 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-03 12:10 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-03 15:22 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-05 11:01 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-26 08:45 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-26 02:35 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-03-26 17:19 +0200
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-27 08:15 +0100
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 15:12 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-25 08:41 +1300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-03-24 16:27 -0600
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-03-24 21:36 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 20:44 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-03-25 14:46 +1300
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-24 11:24 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-24 13:52 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-24 13:55 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 10:31 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-24 14:39 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 12:54 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2017-03-23 21:56 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-23 15:18 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-03-23 16:39 -0600
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-23 20:42 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-03-23 16:33 -0600
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-23 20:45 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-24 10:01 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 09:27 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-24 13:53 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 10:32 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-03-24 14:42 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-03-24 12:56 -0400
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-03-24 08:45 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2017-03-23 21:14 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-03-23 11:52 -0600
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault acidlategamer@gmail.com - 2017-03-23 11:03 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault acidlategamer@gmail.com - 2017-03-23 11:14 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-03-23 12:41 -0600
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-23 11:48 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault acidlategamer@gmail.com - 2017-03-23 11:59 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-23 12:35 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault acidlategamer@gmail.com - 2017-03-23 12:48 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-03-23 13:24 -0700
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-03-23 20:46 +0000
Re: My C program does not compile or gives segmentation fault Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2017-03-23 19:02 -0700
Page 4 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 11 Next page →
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-25 18:23 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <ob6ccm$c47$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107046 |
On 25/03/17 17:15, Keith Thompson wrote: <snip> > Of course `x == 3` and `3 == x` mean exactly the same thing in C. Yes. > But > for me, and for a *lot* of people, `x == 3` is the natural way to write > it, and `3 == x` is almost painfully awkward. If you don't find it > awkward, that's great, but a lot of us do. And likewise, if you do find it awkward, that's unfortunate, but a lot of us don't. > In English, the meaning of "Found someone you have I would say, hmm?" is > perfectly clear, but we don't talk that way unless we're specifically > imitating Yoda, because it's awkward. I find `3 == x` equally awkward. That's still a very English way of looking at it. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-25 18:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn3vfsoddf0j.aa0.ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
| In reply to | #107046 |
On 2017-03-25, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote: > Of course `x == 3` and `3 == x` mean exactly the same thing in C. But > for me, and for a *lot* of people, `x == 3` is the natural way to write > it, and `3 == x` is almost painfully awkward. If you don't find it > awkward, that's great, but a lot of us do. > > In English, the meaning of "Found someone you have I would say, hmm?" is > perfectly clear, but we don't talk that way unless we're specifically > imitating Yoda, because it's awkward. I find `3 == x` equally awkward. I would say that a C expression resembles a mathematical expression more than that it resembles English prose. In mathematics, it is not unusual for a constant to appear on the left side of an equality. See, for instance, Stephen Wolfram's web page that lists several expansions for the constant 'pi', http://functions.wolfram.com/Constants/Pi/06/01/01 Here's an example from that page (paraphrased because some mathematical symbols are hard to reproduce in plain text): pi = 4 * (Sum k : k >= 0 : (-1)^k / (2*k+1)) Is this really more awkward than 4 * (Sum k : k >= 0 : (-1)^k / (2*k+1)) = pi ? ~
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-25 23:22 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20170325232258.f65fa0ba9c634de524686bb5@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #107052 |
Ike Naar: > In mathematics, it is not unusual for a constant > to appear on the left side of an equality. See, > for instance, Stephen Wolfram's web page that > lists several expansions for the constant 'pi', > > http://functions.wolfram.com/Constants/Pi/06/01/01 > > Here's an example from that page (paraphrased be- > cause some mathematical symbols are hard to repro- > duce in plain text): > > pi = 4 * (Sum k : k >= 0 : (-1)^k / (2*k+1)) > > Is this really more awkward than > > 4 * (Sum k : k >= 0 : (-1)^k / (2*k+1)) = pi > > ? The natural arrangement has nothing to do with which side is a constant and which is not, but rather with which expression is the definition and which the thing defined. The first equality answers the question "How may Pi be defined?" whereas the second "What is the sum of this infinite series?" Likewise, in C, "x == 3" is a question about x, whether it equals three, or a statment about x, that it equals three. Expressing it as "3 == x" would be ridiculous because it would seem a question or stat- ment about the number three, whereas it is the vari- able x that is the actual subject of our query. -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-25 20:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn3vfsoddlvh.aa0.ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
| In reply to | #107067 |
On 2017-03-25, Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> wrote: > Ike Naar: > >> In mathematics, it is not unusual for a constant >> to appear on the left side of an equality. See, >> for instance, Stephen Wolfram's web page that >> lists several expansions for the constant 'pi', >> >> http://functions.wolfram.com/Constants/Pi/06/01/01 >> >> Here's an example from that page (paraphrased be- >> cause some mathematical symbols are hard to repro- >> duce in plain text): >> >> pi = 4 * (Sum k : k >= 0 : (-1)^k / (2*k+1)) >> >> Is this really more awkward than >> >> 4 * (Sum k : k >= 0 : (-1)^k / (2*k+1)) = pi >> >> ? > > The natural arrangement has nothing to do with which > side is a constant and which is not, but rather with > which expression is the definition and which the > thing defined. > > The first equality answers the question "How may Pi > be defined?" whereas the second "What is the sum of > this infinite series?" > > Likewise, in C, "x == 3" is a question about x, > whether it equals three, or a statment about x, that > it equals three. Expressing it as "3 == x" would be > ridiculous because it would seem a question or stat- > ment about the number three, whereas it is the vari- > able x that is the actual subject of our query. An equality is not a definition. If it were, Stephen Wolfram's page would be listing 32 definitions of pi. Wouldn't that be strange? I would rather regard those equations as properties of pi, not as definitions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-26 15:56 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20170326155649.fd30bc8d9d0c43f626c00a09@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #107071 |
Ike Naar to Anton Shepelev: > > Ike Naar: > > > > > In mathematics, it is not unusual for a con- > > > stant to appear on the left side of an equali- > > > ty. See, for instance, Stephen Wolfram's web > > > page that lists several expansions for the > > > constant 'pi', > > > > > > http://functions.wolfram.com/Constants/Pi/06/01/01 > > > > > > Here's an example from that page (paraphrased > > > because some mathematical symbols are hard to > > > reproduce in plain text): > > > > > > pi = 4 * (Sum k : k >= 0 : (-1)^k / (2*k+1)) > > > > > > Is this really more awkward than > > > > > > 4 * (Sum k : k >= 0 : (-1)^k / (2*k+1)) = pi > > > > > > ? > > > > The natural arrangement has nothing to do with > > which side is a constant and which is not, but > > rather with which expression is the definition > > and which the thing defined. > > > > The first equality answers the question "How may > > Pi be defined?" whereas the second "What is the > > sum of this infinite series?" > > > > Likewise, in C, "x == 3" is a question about x, > > whether it equals three, or a statment about x, > > that it equals three. Expressing it as "3 == x" > > would be ridiculous because it would seem a > > question or statment about the number three, > > whereas it is the variable x that is the actual > > subject of our query. > > An equality is not a definition. If it were, > Stephen Wolfram's page would be listing 32 defini- > tions of pi. Wouldn't that be strange? No, multiple definitions of the same thing are ususal in calculus. > I would rather regard those equations as proper- > ties of pi, not as definitions. They are properties, yes, but that is a weak state- ment, for they are more than them -- defintions, be- cause each equality defines the value of Pi. -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-26 18:13 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn3vfsodg1br.qe1.ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
| In reply to | #107104 |
On 2017-03-26, Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ike Naar to Anton Shepelev:
>
>> > Ike Naar:
>> >
>> > > In mathematics, it is not unusual for a con-
>> > > stant to appear on the left side of an equali-
>> > > ty. See, for instance, Stephen Wolfram's web
>> > > page that lists several expansions for the
>> > > constant 'pi',
>> > >
>> > > http://functions.wolfram.com/Constants/Pi/06/01/01
>> > >
>> > > Here's an example from that page (paraphrased
>> > > because some mathematical symbols are hard to
>> > > reproduce in plain text):
>> > >
>> > > pi = 4 * (Sum k : k >= 0 : (-1)^k / (2*k+1))
>> > >
>> > > Is this really more awkward than
>> > >
>> > > 4 * (Sum k : k >= 0 : (-1)^k / (2*k+1)) = pi
>> > >
>> > > ?
>> >
>> > The natural arrangement has nothing to do with
>> > which side is a constant and which is not, but
>> > rather with which expression is the definition
>> > and which the thing defined.
>> >
>> > The first equality answers the question "How may
>> > Pi be defined?" whereas the second "What is the
>> > sum of this infinite series?"
>> >
>> > Likewise, in C, "x == 3" is a question about x,
>> > whether it equals three, or a statment about x,
>> > that it equals three. Expressing it as "3 == x"
>> > would be ridiculous because it would seem a
>> > question or statment about the number three,
>> > whereas it is the variable x that is the actual
>> > subject of our query.
"3 == x" is
1) a question about 3 (is it equal to x?),
2) a question about x (is it equal to 3?),
3) a question about 3 and x (are they equal?).
I would choose option 3 because it is the only option that
respects the symmetry of the == operator.
>> An equality is not a definition. If it were,
>> Stephen Wolfram's page would be listing 32 defini-
>> tions of pi. Wouldn't that be strange?
>
> No, multiple definitions of the same thing are
> ususal in calculus.
>
>> I would rather regard those equations as proper-
>> ties of pi, not as definitions.
>
> They are properties, yes, but that is a weak state-
> ment, for they are more than them -- defintions, be-
> cause each equality defines the value of Pi.
Why does
4 * (Sum k : k >= 0 : (-1)^k / (2*k+1)) = pi
define the value of pi, and not, say, the value of 4 or the value
of -1 or any other constant appearing in the formula?
If it were rewritten as
pi / (Sum k : k >= 0 : (-1)^k / (2*k+1)) = 4
would it still define the value of pi ?
I think that an equality does not define anything, it only asks
whether its left and right operand have equal values (or, alternatively,
states that its left and right operand have equal values).
If equalities are definitions, what would be defined by
(a+b) * (a-b) == (a*a) - (b*b)
?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-26 17:03 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <ob8l3h$aq6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107046 |
On 25/03/17 18:15, Keith Thompson wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >> On 25/03/17 14:17, David Brown wrote: >>> On 25/03/17 13:32, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> On 25/03/17 10:16, Richard Bos wrote: >>>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> But there are plenty of other tools available for static error >>>>>> checking. >>>>>> There is /no/ excuse for writing Yoda-style conditionals such as "if >>>>>> (3 == x) >>>> >>>> (David: how is that "Yoda style"? The applicable grammar here is C, not >>>> English. Do you think comparison imposes a grammatical ordering on >>>> comparands?) >>> >>> "Yoda style" means writing things in an odd order for some imagined >>> safety or efficiency benefit. It is normal (for English speakers, >>> anyway) to say "if x is 3 then ...". Thus the clearest and most natural >>> C equivalent is "if (x == 3) ...". >>> >>> If like Yoda you want to talk, and to say "if 3 is x ..." you prefer, >>> then "if (3 == x)" you write. >> >> You are still confusing English and C. >> >> x == y doesn't mean "x is y". Nor does it mean "y is x". It means that >> its two operands evaluate to the same value. > > `x == y` means "x is equal to y" (I think that's a good English > rendition of the C semantics). That is a more precise rendition than "x is y" - and the same "natural ordering" applies. You also see it in mathematics - you write (and say) "x² - 5x + 6 = 0", not "0 = x² - 5x + 6". > >>> Writing "if (3 == x)" has a benefit /only/ if you have poor tools (or >>> don't know how to use them correctly) which are unable to warn you if >>> you write "if (x = 3)". >> >> Writing if(3 == x) does indeed have at least that benefit. Writing if(x >> == 3) has no commensurate benefit. > > Of course `x == 3` and `3 == x` mean exactly the same thing in C. But > for me, and for a *lot* of people, `x == 3` is the natural way to write > it, and `3 == x` is almost painfully awkward. If you don't find it > awkward, that's great, but a lot of us do. > > In English, the meaning of "Found someone you have I would say, hmm?" is > perfectly clear, but we don't talk that way unless we're specifically > imitating Yoda, because it's awkward. I find `3 == x` equally awkward. > On the head the nail you have hit!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-25 21:16 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87poh56or1.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #107044 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > On 25/03/17 14:17, David Brown wrote: >> On 25/03/17 13:32, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 25/03/17 10:16, Richard Bos wrote: >>>> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote: >>>> >>>>> But there are plenty of other tools available for static error >>>>> checking. >>>>> There is /no/ excuse for writing Yoda-style conditionals such as "if >>>>> (3 == x) >>> >>> (David: how is that "Yoda style"? The applicable grammar here is C, not >>> English. Do you think comparison imposes a grammatical ordering on >>> comparands?) >> >> "Yoda style" means writing things in an odd order for some imagined >> safety or efficiency benefit. It is normal (for English speakers, >> anyway) to say "if x is 3 then ...". Thus the clearest and most natural >> C equivalent is "if (x == 3) ...". >> >> If like Yoda you want to talk, and to say "if 3 is x ..." you prefer, >> then "if (3 == x)" you write. > > You are still confusing English and C. The language encourages you to. It was keywords like return, while, if and else and the grammar is designed to seem reasonable to an English speaker. The return statement could have been 42 <- or even 42 return you do; but DMR decided on return 42; > x == y doesn't mean "x is y". Nor does it mean "y is x". It means that > its two operands evaluate to the same value. Of course, and "return 42;" in C does not mean "return 42" in English but C's return statement is intended to be similar in form to some uses of return in English. Many people like to extend that similarity to the ordering of conditional expressions. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-25 21:28 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <58d6e0b3.20124312@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #107044 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: > On 25/03/17 14:17, David Brown wrote: > > Writing "if (3 == x)" has a benefit /only/ if you have poor tools (or > > don't know how to use them correctly) which are unable to warn you if > > you write "if (x = 3)". > > Writing if(3 == x) does indeed have at least that benefit. Writing if(x > == 3) has no commensurate benefit. Indeed; it has, instead, the incummensurately greater benefit of being easy to read by people who are not robots or little green men. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-25 19:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <ddedeba8-497e-7cbe-2a10-d2224902f8dc@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #107075 |
On 03/25/2017 05:28 PM, Richard Bos wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: ... >> Writing if(3 == x) does indeed have at least that benefit. Writing if(x >> == 3) has no commensurate benefit. > > Indeed; it has, instead, the incummensurately greater benefit of being > easy to read by people who are not robots or little green men. Wait a minute - how did you know ... has my artificial skin worn off again? :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-26 08:53 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ob7rsv$28i$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107075 |
On 25/03/17 21:28, Richard Bos wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote: > >> On 25/03/17 14:17, David Brown wrote: > >>> Writing "if (3 == x)" has a benefit /only/ if you have poor tools (or >>> don't know how to use them correctly) which are unable to warn you if >>> you write "if (x = 3)". >> >> Writing if(3 == x) does indeed have at least that benefit. Writing if(x >> == 3) has no commensurate benefit. > > Indeed; it has, instead, the incummensurately greater benefit of being > easy to read by people who are not robots or little green men. I value readability very highly, but I do assume that the reader has a basic familiarity with the language. And obviously you do. And so do the others who have expressed an opinion on this matter in this thread. Anyone who is bright enough to understand that addition is commutative (and thus that x + y gives the same result as y + x) is also bright enough to understand that comparison for equality is commutative (and thus that x == y gives the same results as y == x). Anyone who is not bright enough to understand commutativity needs to be looking at other careers. Everybody in this thread who has expressed an opinion /is/ bright enough to understand commutativity, so I really, truly don't see why they are so upset by 3 == x. Do these same people find it difficult to read B == x? -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-26 02:39 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnwpbc74y3.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #107093 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
[...]
> Anyone who is bright enough to understand that addition is commutative
> (and thus that x + y gives the same result as y + x) is also bright
> enough to understand that comparison for equality is commutative (and
> thus that x == y gives the same results as y == x).
>
> Anyone who is not bright enough to understand commutativity needs to be
> looking at other careers.
>
> Everybody in this thread who has expressed an opinion /is/ bright enough
> to understand commutativity, so I really, truly don't see why they are
> so upset by 3 == x. Do these same people find it difficult to read B == x?
I see that you don't understand.
Repeating that addition and equality are commutative is not helpful.
We all know that.
I assure you that (a) I understand perfectly well that `x == 3` and
`3 == x` are equivalent, and (b) I find `3 == x` ugly and jarring.
Can we start by acknowledging that I'm not just making that up,
and that a lot of people share the same feeling?
--
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 | Sjouke Burry <burrynulnulfour@ppllaanneett.nnll> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-26 11:54 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <58d78fe0$0$4136$e4fe514c@textnews.kpn.nl> |
| In reply to | #107096 |
On 26.03.17 11:39, Keith Thompson wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > [...] >> Anyone who is bright enough to understand that addition is commutative >> (and thus that x + y gives the same result as y + x) is also bright >> enough to understand that comparison for equality is commutative (and >> thus that x == y gives the same results as y == x). >> >> Anyone who is not bright enough to understand commutativity needs to be >> looking at other careers. >> >> Everybody in this thread who has expressed an opinion /is/ bright enough >> to understand commutativity, so I really, truly don't see why they are >> so upset by 3 == x. Do these same people find it difficult to read B == x? > > I see that you don't understand. > > Repeating that addition and equality are commutative is not helpful. > We all know that. > > I assure you that (a) I understand perfectly well that `x == 3` and > `3 == x` are equivalent, and (b) I find `3 == x` ugly and jarring. > Can we start by acknowledging that I'm not just making that up, > and that a lot of people share the same feeling? > ++++++1
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-26 22:57 +1300 |
| Message-ID | <ejphjlFrv02U7@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #107097 |
On 03/26/17 10:54 PM, Sjouke Burry wrote: > On 26.03.17 11:39, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >> [...] >>> Anyone who is bright enough to understand that addition is commutative >>> (and thus that x + y gives the same result as y + x) is also bright >>> enough to understand that comparison for equality is commutative (and >>> thus that x == y gives the same results as y == x). >>> >>> Anyone who is not bright enough to understand commutativity needs to be >>> looking at other careers. >>> >>> Everybody in this thread who has expressed an opinion /is/ bright enough >>> to understand commutativity, so I really, truly don't see why they are >>> so upset by 3 == x. Do these same people find it difficult to read B == x? >> >> I see that you don't understand. >> >> Repeating that addition and equality are commutative is not helpful. >> We all know that. >> >> I assure you that (a) I understand perfectly well that `x == 3` and >> `3 == x` are equivalent, and (b) I find `3 == x` ugly and jarring. >> Can we start by acknowledging that I'm not just making that up, >> and that a lot of people share the same feeling? >> > ++++++1 > ...and some more! -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-27 08:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <obae79$52e$3@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107097 |
On 26/03/17 10:54, Sjouke Burry wrote: > On 26.03.17 11:39, Keith Thompson wrote: >> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >> [...] >>> Anyone who is bright enough to understand that addition is commutative >>> (and thus that x + y gives the same result as y + x) is also bright >>> enough to understand that comparison for equality is commutative (and >>> thus that x == y gives the same results as y == x). >>> >>> Anyone who is not bright enough to understand commutativity needs to be >>> looking at other careers. >>> >>> Everybody in this thread who has expressed an opinion /is/ bright enough >>> to understand commutativity, so I really, truly don't see why they are >>> so upset by 3 == x. Do these same people find it difficult to read B >>> == x? >> >> I see that you don't understand. >> >> Repeating that addition and equality are commutative is not helpful. >> We all know that. >> >> I assure you that (a) I understand perfectly well that `x == 3` and >> `3 == x` are equivalent, and (b) I find `3 == x` ugly and jarring. >> Can we start by acknowledging that I'm not just making that up, >> and that a lot of people share the same feeling? >> > ++++++1 That's never gonna compile. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-26 11:37 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn3vfsodfa4n.ei4.ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
| In reply to | #107096 |
On 2017-03-26, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
> I find `3 == x` ugly and jarring.
Yes, it stutters ("three equals equals x").
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-27 08:19 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <obae8a$52e$4@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107102 |
On 26/03/17 12:37, Ike Naar wrote:
> On 2017-03-26, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>> I find `3 == x` ugly and jarring.
>
> Yes, it stutters ("three equals equals x").
And "x equals equals three" doesn't?
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-27 21:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrn3vfsodj2jj.qfh.ike@iceland.freeshell.org> |
| In reply to | #107140 |
On 2017-03-27, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
> On 26/03/17 12:37, Ike Naar wrote:
>> On 2017-03-26, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>>> I find `3 == x` ugly and jarring.
>>
>> Yes, it stutters ("three equals equals x").
>
> And "x equals equals three" doesn't?
It does. And that is why I don't find the "ugly and jarring"
arguments very convincing. C is full of constructs that are ugly
and jarring, but that does not mean that C is not useful. The
assignment operator is ugly and jarring. The stuttering "==" syntax
of the equality operator is ugly and jarring. Octal constants are
ugly and jarring. Integer promotion rules are ugly and jarring.
Declaration-follows-use is ugly and jarrig. And so on. Despite all
that, useful software can be written in C because programmers have
learned to live with those ugly and jarring constructs.
I really don't understand why one of the things that isn't ugly
and jarring (the symmetry of the == operator) is found ugly and
jarring in some people's eyes.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-27 16:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ln37dy71az.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #107222 |
Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> writes:
> On 2017-03-27, Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 26/03/17 12:37, Ike Naar wrote:
>>> On 2017-03-26, Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> wrote:
>>>> I find `3 == x` ugly and jarring.
>>>
>>> Yes, it stutters ("three equals equals x").
>>
>> And "x equals equals three" doesn't?
>
> It does. And that is why I don't find the "ugly and jarring"
> arguments very convincing. C is full of constructs that are ugly
> and jarring, but that does not mean that C is not useful. The
> assignment operator is ugly and jarring. The stuttering "==" syntax
> of the equality operator is ugly and jarring. Octal constants are
> ugly and jarring. Integer promotion rules are ugly and jarring.
> Declaration-follows-use is ugly and jarrig. And so on. Despite all
> that, useful software can be written in C because programmers have
> learned to live with those ugly and jarring constructs.
>
> I really don't understand why one of the things that isn't ugly
> and jarring (the symmetry of the == operator) is found ugly and
> jarring in some people's eyes.
Correct, you don't. I'm not entirely sure I understand it either.
I've tried to explain it as well as I can, but I may have failed.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-03-27 08:18 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <obae5n$52e$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #107096 |
On 26/03/17 10:39, Keith Thompson wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > [...] >> Anyone who is bright enough to understand that addition is commutative >> (and thus that x + y gives the same result as y + x) is also bright >> enough to understand that comparison for equality is commutative (and >> thus that x == y gives the same results as y == x). >> >> Anyone who is not bright enough to understand commutativity needs to be >> looking at other careers. >> >> Everybody in this thread who has expressed an opinion /is/ bright enough >> to understand commutativity, so I really, truly don't see why they are >> so upset by 3 == x. Do these same people find it difficult to read B == x? > > I see that you don't understand. I think I'm beginning to. > Repeating that addition and equality are commutative is not helpful. > We all know that. I know you all know that. Because I know you all know that, I'm really struggling to see why you have an issue here. > I assure you that (a) I understand perfectly well that `x == 3` and > `3 == x` are equivalent, and (b) I find `3 == x` ugly and jarring. I accept your assurance. I find it strange, but I accept it. > Can we start by acknowledging that I'm not just making that up, > and that a lot of people share the same feeling? Yes, but let's be clear that it's a /feeling/. It doesn't seem to have any logical grounds whatsoever. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web