Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #95408 > unrolled thread
| Started by | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-30 05:42 -0700 |
| Last post | 2016-11-03 03:58 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 410 — 25 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 05:42 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-30 17:17 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 11:02 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-30 12:13 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-30 12:52 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-30 13:38 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-30 14:32 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 13:49 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-30 14:04 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 14:14 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 14:20 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 14:23 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-31 13:40 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-01 01:45 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-11-01 07:55 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2016-11-01 08:07 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-01 16:55 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-01 11:58 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 12:34 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 12:49 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-01 20:13 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-11-02 12:45 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-02 20:37 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-11-15 10:50 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-10-31 12:37 +0100
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 06:01 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 11:11 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-10-31 01:26 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-30 12:49 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2016-10-31 14:16 +0100
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-31 14:20 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-31 14:55 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-31 08:10 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 08:27 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 09:12 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 09:20 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2016-11-05 04:24 +0100
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-31 16:35 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-31 09:59 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-31 17:04 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-31 12:16 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-31 19:19 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-01 08:31 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-01 22:07 -0400
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 01:55 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-02 09:18 -0400
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-02 15:45 +0100
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 07:48 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 07:58 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 08:05 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-02 17:17 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-02 10:37 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-02 20:38 +0100
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2016-11-05 04:37 +0100
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-05 14:12 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2016-11-07 00:37 +0100
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-02 11:03 -0400
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 11:20 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 11:24 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 09:02 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-01 16:27 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-01 17:46 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-01 11:46 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-01 19:41 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-01 13:10 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-01 20:50 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-01 21:04 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-01 22:22 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-01 22:54 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 07:02 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-02 18:53 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-02 12:24 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-02 20:12 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 13:21 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-02 21:11 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 14:46 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 15:28 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 02:32 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-01 15:26 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 15:55 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-11-02 12:53 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-01 16:39 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 16:55 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 02:21 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 05:02 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-02 12:58 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 08:03 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 08:14 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-02 09:19 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-02 17:54 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-02 11:47 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-02 19:01 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-02 12:28 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-11-12 13:36 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-13 11:07 +1300
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-12 22:27 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-12 14:49 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-11-15 10:23 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-12 14:47 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-11-15 10:05 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-12 17:06 -0500
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 19:35 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 13:12 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-01 13:37 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-01 09:45 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-31 18:33 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 11:41 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-31 18:51 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-01 08:43 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-01 16:14 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 16:04 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 16:22 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-31 23:45 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 16:58 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 17:11 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-01 01:27 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 02:31 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 02:41 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-11-01 03:15 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-01 11:14 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-01 11:30 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-01 12:10 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-01 11:23 -0400
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-01 09:33 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-01 22:16 -0400
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-01 20:36 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-11-02 09:20 -0400
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-02 09:02 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-03 22:09 -0400
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-01 17:37 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-01 11:59 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 05:51 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-01 06:26 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 07:32 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-01 15:37 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-01 08:50 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-01 09:05 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-01 17:48 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-01 12:38 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-01 22:55 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-02 00:04 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-02 02:06 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-02 10:05 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 08:07 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 08:45 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-02 09:17 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-02 19:10 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-02 12:55 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-02 20:13 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-02 13:37 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-02 19:18 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-02 13:04 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-02 20:54 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-02 22:31 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-02 23:53 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-03 08:41 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 14:05 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-02 16:17 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-03 17:31 +1300
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-03 08:20 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-04 07:59 +1300
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-04 09:53 +0100
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-04 22:32 +1300
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-04 07:57 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-04 16:47 +0100
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-04 09:09 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-04 18:04 +0100
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-04 12:27 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-05 14:42 +0100
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-05 14:04 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-06 17:29 +0100
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-06 18:42 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-11-15 10:51 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-15 12:16 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-15 12:34 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-15 13:27 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-15 13:43 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-15 14:02 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-15 15:01 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-15 16:00 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-15 17:06 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-15 22:49 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-16 04:30 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-16 08:37 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-16 09:34 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-16 09:49 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-16 10:27 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-17 13:03 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-11-18 09:08 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-11-16 10:31 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-05 08:14 +1300
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-02 21:43 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-02 16:16 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-03 00:05 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 06:07 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 01:59 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 02:19 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 03:25 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-03 10:51 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-03 11:58 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-03 12:26 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-03 13:05 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-03 14:50 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-03 15:00 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-03 16:27 +0100
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 08:38 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-03 09:07 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-11-04 10:00 +0100
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-03 09:00 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-03 16:29 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-03 16:43 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-03 17:14 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-03 17:23 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-03 18:18 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-03 18:38 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-03 18:42 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-03 18:56 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 12:15 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-03 20:26 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 13:55 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-03 21:58 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-03 19:46 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 02:46 +0800
[OT] "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 11:59 +0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-03 12:14 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-03 15:27 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-03 08:45 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-03 16:33 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-03 09:57 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-03 12:12 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-04 02:02 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-04 11:15 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-04 12:12 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-04 13:52 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-04 15:28 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 17:17 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-04 19:04 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 12:34 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-04 20:20 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-05 14:52 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-05 15:42 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-05 11:40 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-05 21:24 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-05 21:23 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-05 21:58 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-05 15:57 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-05 17:00 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 19:59 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-04 17:48 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-11-04 12:55 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-04 20:30 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-04 21:13 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-04 15:13 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-04 22:37 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-04 17:02 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-04 16:19 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-04 22:58 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-05 02:14 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-05 11:13 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-05 14:23 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-05 15:38 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-05 16:13 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-05 17:01 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-05 14:04 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-05 23:01 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-05 16:20 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-05 23:46 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-06 08:26 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-05 18:41 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-05 23:57 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-06 00:48 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-06 02:12 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-06 16:52 +1300
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-06 12:02 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-06 11:02 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-06 11:45 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-06 12:51 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-06 14:19 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-06 14:49 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-06 15:49 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-06 15:57 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-06 16:31 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-06 17:40 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 10:16 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-06 19:18 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-06 19:40 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-06 20:12 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-06 21:01 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-07 20:42 +1300
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-07 08:17 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-07 22:27 +1300
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-07 12:37 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-08 11:12 +1300
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-08 00:09 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-08 13:46 +1300
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-06 13:10 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-06 21:22 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-06 21:44 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-06 21:58 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-06 14:11 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-06 22:47 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-06 18:14 -0500
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-07 01:36 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-07 00:49 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-07 11:32 -0500
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-07 09:28 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-07 10:49 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-06 22:37 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-11-06 14:02 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 10:57 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-07 21:55 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-07 22:38 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-07 23:49 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-08 00:02 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-07 19:21 -0500
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-08 00:25 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-08 07:02 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-08 15:49 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-08 16:03 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-08 08:10 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-08 16:31 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-08 18:15 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-11-09 23:32 -0600
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-08 08:04 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-06 20:54 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-06 13:02 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-06 12:53 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-11-06 21:06 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-06 21:36 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-06 14:06 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-07 00:39 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-06 18:12 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-06 19:18 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-07 10:55 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-07 12:00 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-07 22:01 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-07 21:03 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-08 10:26 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-08 06:34 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-08 08:06 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-08 08:35 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-08 11:26 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-08 11:58 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-08 12:10 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-08 12:35 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-08 13:27 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-08 21:39 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-08 13:55 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-08 16:44 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-07 18:54 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-06 13:27 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-06 12:59 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-06 21:35 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-06 13:56 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-06 22:01 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-06 14:33 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-06 14:08 -0800
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-06 22:32 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-06 23:00 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-07 01:02 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-05 12:16 +1300
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-05 01:32 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-04 19:13 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-11-05 16:34 +1300
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-05 11:29 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-05 14:09 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-04 20:49 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-11-05 02:06 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-04 09:05 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-04 17:05 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} asetofsymbols@gmail.com - 2016-11-03 15:08 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 20:21 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-03 20:35 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 21:47 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 21:48 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 08:02 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-03 18:09 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-03 18:48 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-03 19:53 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-03 20:52 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-03 23:09 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-11-04 07:08 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-11-03 22:24 -0400
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-01 11:50 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-11-01 16:28 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 05:07 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 05:18 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 05:30 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-11-01 05:38 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 16:47 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "Pascal J. Bourguignon" <pjb@informatimago.com> - 2016-11-05 04:11 +0100
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-11-05 10:48 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-05 14:06 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-31 17:38 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-31 17:44 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 11:04 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-31 19:12 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-31 19:18 +0000
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 10:53 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-11-01 08:25 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-31 08:05 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 08:27 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 07:59 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 10:36 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 11:36 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 12:12 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 12:59 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 13:27 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2016-10-31 13:40 -0700
Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2016-11-03 03:58 -0700
Page 10 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 21 Next page →
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-15 17:06 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <ln1syci66v.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #96666 |
supercat@casperkitty.com writes:
> On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 5:01:06 PM UTC-6, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> supercat writes:
>> [...]
>> > What I do not see is any indication that Dennis Ritchie expected that
>> > implementations running on silent-wraparound hardware would treat overflow
>> > in silent-wraparound function most of the time while occasionally treating
>> > overflow as a license to misbehave in completely arbitrary fashion.
>>
>> What I do not see is any indication that you have any special
>> insight into Dennis Ritchie's thoughts at the time.
>>
>> If he had expected what you say he didn't expect, how would he have
>> expressed that?
>
> He would have explicitly specified in the documentation for his
> implementation that overflow uses silent-wraparound semantics in
> all cases, and mentioned that programmers should not assume anything
> about the integer-overflow behavior of any implementation that does
> not explicitly specify them, even if the underlying platform would
> use silent-wraparound semantics.
>
> Otherwise, given that C used to be treated as a low-level language, the
> normal expectation would be that implementations would have overflow
> semantics that mirror those of the target hardware unless specified
> otherwise.
The handling of overflow, divide check, and other exceptions in
expression evaluation is not defined by the language.
Which he did, in 1988.
--
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 | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-15 22:49 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <939b0c10-54c9-408d-89c4-34868c3f63af@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #96668 |
On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 7:06:45 PM UTC-6, Keith Thompson wrote: > supercat writes: > > He would have explicitly specified in the documentation for his > > implementation that overflow uses silent-wraparound semantics in > > all cases, and mentioned that programmers should not assume anything > > about the integer-overflow behavior of any implementation that does > > not explicitly specify them, even if the underlying platform would > > use silent-wraparound semantics. > > The handling of overflow, divide check, and other exceptions in > expression evaluation is not defined by the language. > > Which he did, in 1988. Where does he say "even if the underlying platform would use silent wraparound semantics"? That's a key part of what I would suggest he would have said if he'd intended anything resembling the behavior of modern compilers.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jameskuyper@verizon.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-16 04:30 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <e200f4ac-9c6d-42dd-ae88-bfa383eac635@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #96676 |
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 1:49:38 AM UTC-5, supe...@casperkitty.com wrote: > On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 7:06:45 PM UTC-6, Keith Thompson wrote: ... [Dennis Ritchie wrote:] > > The handling of overflow, divide check, and other exceptions in > > expression evaluation is not defined by the language. > > > > Which he did, in 1988. > > Where does he say "even if the underlying platform would use silent > wraparound semantics"? That's a key part of what I would suggest he > would have said if he'd intended anything resembling the behavior of > modern compilers. That's the key problem. Neither he, nor the C committee, is in the habit of expressing ideas that way. A typical statement in the standard is expressed in the form "if X is true, then Y is true, except when Z is true", with the "if" and "except" clauses being optional. The standard does occasionally use the "even if" construct, but in most cases the absence of an exception to a rule is expressed by FAILING to mention the exception - mentioning all of the things that are NOT exceptions to any given rule would make the standard infinitely long, which would make it rather hard to write, store, transmit, or read. :-) The committee does not use "even if" anywhere near as often as it would have to, in order to correct your misunderstandings of their intent. As a general rule, "if X then Y except when Z" should be considered to be equivalent to "For all Z', if X is true, then Y is true, except when Z is true, even if Z' is true". You can even prove that equivalence using formal logic. Dennis Ritchie expressed the same idea as the one you describe above, by FAILING to say "unless the underlying platform would use silent wraparound semantics".
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-16 08:37 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <lnwpg3gz48.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #96676 |
supercat@casperkitty.com writes:
> On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 7:06:45 PM UTC-6, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> supercat writes:
>> > He would have explicitly specified in the documentation for his
>> > implementation that overflow uses silent-wraparound semantics in
>> > all cases, and mentioned that programmers should not assume anything
>> > about the integer-overflow behavior of any implementation that does
>> > not explicitly specify them, even if the underlying platform would
>> > use silent-wraparound semantics.
>>
>> The handling of overflow, divide check, and other exceptions in
>> expression evaluation is not defined by the language.
>>
>> Which he did, in 1988.
>
> Where does he say "even if the underlying platform would use silent
> wraparound semantics"?
The same place he says "even if the user is wearning a plaid shirt".
> That's a key part of what I would suggest he
> would have said if he'd intended anything resembling the behavior of
> modern compilers.
Surely the phrase "not defined by the language" is clear enough.
--
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 | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-16 09:34 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <ba0f4aff-1424-4cde-bdaf-9f5baf0dfd75@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #96694 |
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 10:37:19 AM UTC-6, Keith Thompson wrote: > supercat writes: > > On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 7:06:45 PM UTC-6, Keith Thompson wrote: > >> supercat writes: > >> > He would have explicitly specified in the documentation for his > >> > implementation that overflow uses silent-wraparound semantics in > >> > all cases, and mentioned that programmers should not assume anything > >> > about the integer-overflow behavior of any implementation that does > >> > not explicitly specify them, even if the underlying platform would > >> > use silent-wraparound semantics. > >> > >> The handling of overflow, divide check, and other exceptions in > >> expression evaluation is not defined by the language. > >> > >> Which he did, in 1988. > > > > Where does he say "even if the underlying platform would use silent > > wraparound semantics"? > > The same place he says "even if the user is wearning a plaid shirt". > > > That's a key part of what I would suggest he > > would have said if he'd intended anything resembling the behavior of > > modern compilers. > > Surely the phrase "not defined by the language" is clear enough. The language is usable on platforms which implement silent wraparound in hardware and also on platforms that don't. Further, even on silent- wraparound hardware, some implementations had documented options to trap on overflow. Most implementations, however, ran on silent-wraparound hardware and had nothing in their code-generation logic which would cause them to deviate from such semantics, but didn't bother to explicitly document the silent- wraparound behavior that resulted. What would you think Ritchie would have said if he merely wanted to indicate that implementations which run on non-silent-wraparound platforms or document other behaviors for overflow are not required to have silent-wraparound semantics, but *didn't* want to suggest that such semantics should not be expected on commonplace two's-complement platforms whose documentation does not say anything about integer overflow?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-16 09:49 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <lnoa1fgvrt.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #96704 |
supercat@casperkitty.com writes:
> On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 10:37:19 AM UTC-6, Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
>> Surely the phrase "not defined by the language" is clear enough.
Apparently not.
> The language is usable on platforms which implement silent wraparound in
> hardware and also on platforms that don't. Further, even on silent-
> wraparound hardware, some implementations had documented options to trap
> on overflow.
>
> Most implementations, however, ran on silent-wraparound hardware and had
> nothing in their code-generation logic which would cause them to deviate
> from such semantics, but didn't bother to explicitly document the silent-
> wraparound behavior that resulted.
>
> What would you think Ritchie would have said if he merely wanted to indicate
> that implementations which run on non-silent-wraparound platforms or document
> other behaviors for overflow are not required to have silent-wraparound
> semantics, but *didn't* want to suggest that such semantics should not be
> expected on commonplace two's-complement platforms whose documentation does
> not say anything about integer overflow?
I don't know, probably something other than "not defined by the language".
More specifically, I'm fairly sure he would have used shorter sentences
to say whatever it is you imagine he might have said in some alternate
universe. In any case, I'm not interested in helping you put words in
Dennis Ritchie's mouth.
--
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 | jameskuyper@verizon.net |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-16 10:27 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <7dd1f5ea-08f3-45de-937e-e2fe2c3ba0fc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #96704 |
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 12:34:37 PM UTC-5, supe...@casperkitty.com wrote: > On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 10:37:19 AM UTC-6, Keith Thompson wrote: ... > > Surely the phrase "not defined by the language" is clear enough. > > The language is usable on platforms which implement silent wraparound in > hardware and also on platforms that don't. Further, even on silent- > wraparound hardware, some implementations had documented options to trap > on overflow. > > Most implementations, however, ran on silent-wraparound hardware and had > nothing in their code-generation logic which would cause them to deviate > from such semantics, but didn't bother to explicitly document the silent- > wraparound behavior that resulted. > > What would you think Ritchie would have said if he merely wanted to indicate > that implementations which run on non-silent-wraparound platforms or document > other behaviors for overflow are not required to have silent-wraparound > semantics, but *didn't* want to suggest that such semantics should not be > expected on commonplace two's-complement platforms whose documentation does > not say anything about integer overflow? There's no point in saying he "didn't want to suggest that" something "should not be expected". The language specification should either require, allow, or prohibit any particular behavior that it talks about - making finer distinctions than those three choices does little to help the developer. If there's a 80% chance that a given type of behavior will occur, good developers would write exactly the same code that they would write if there was only a 20% chance - that code would cope, correctly, with both the possibility that the behavior will occur, and also with the possibility that it won't . If he had wanted to say something which would justify your misinterpretation, he would have explicitly stated that if a platform supports silent wrap-around semantics, then an implementation of C targeting that platform is required to have such semantics. This would be a very odd thing for him to say, inconsistent with the general design principles of C. C gives implementations a lot of freedom to do whatever is most convenient for the specific platform they are targeting, but nowhere requires that they do so. An implementation which targeted a wide variety of very different platforms, but provided exactly the same semantics on all of them, even when it was difficult to arrange those semantics on some of those platforms, could be fully conforming. It might even be fairly popular - after all, java actually mandates this approach. C merely allows it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-17 13:03 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <989bc8f1-4e0f-4a70-90eb-e13799566b63@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #96707 |
On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 12:28:02 PM UTC-6, james...@verizon.net wrote: > On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 12:34:37 PM UTC-5, supercat wrote: > > What would you think Ritchie would have said if he merely wanted to indicate > > that implementations which run on non-silent-wraparound platforms or document > > other behaviors for overflow are not required to have silent-wraparound > > semantics, but *didn't* want to suggest that such semantics should not be > > expected on commonplace two's-complement platforms whose documentation does > > not say anything about integer overflow? > > There's no point in saying he "didn't want to suggest that" something "should > not be expected". The language specification should either require, allow, or > prohibit any particular behavior that it talks about - making finer > distinctions than those three choices does little to help the developer. If > there's a 80% chance that a given type of behavior will occur, good developers > would write exactly the same code that they would write if there was only a 20% > chance - that code would cope, correctly, with both the possibility that the > behavior will occur, and also with the possibility that it won't . If program X might need to run on obsolescent platforms but there is no plausible way program Y would ever have to do so, and if a construct would be efficiently supportable on 90% of obsolescent platforms and 100% of all present and future platforms, it would be beneficial for program X to avoid the construct, but the same would not apply to program Y. > If he had wanted to say something which would justify your misinterpretation, > he would have explicitly stated that if a platform supports silent wrap-around > semantics, then an implementation of C targeting that platform is required to > have such semantics. This would be a very odd thing for him to say, > inconsistent with the general design principles of C. A quality implementation should either support such semantics *or explicitly document the failure to do so*. A problem with the design of the Standard is that it doesn't define any category of behavior for things which quality implementations should specify to the extent practical, but which they need not document precisely when impractical. If overflow were implementation-defined, then an implementation with 16-bit "int" but a 32-bit accumulator, given something like "if (x+y > z) ...", would likely be required to either sign-extend the bottom 16 bits of the sum before doing the comparison or else do something even more expensive. The authors of the Standard quite reasonably did not want to impose such a cost. On the other hand, such an implementation could still quite usefully document that integer overflow will have no side-effects but will yield a value which would behave as though its bottom 16 bits were correct and an arbitrary number of upper bits held non- deterministic values. In some cases, such a guarantee would be sufficient to let programmers write much more efficient code than would otherwise be possible. > An implementation which targeted a wide variety of very different platforms, > but provided exactly the same semantics on all of them, even when it was > difficult to arrange those semantics on some of those platforms, could be fully > conforming. It might even be fairly popular - after all, java actually mandates > this approach. C merely allows it. The C Standard already imposes requirements which are impractical on some platforms where the language would otherwise be useful (and where non-conforming implementations are, in fact, useful).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-18 09:08 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <582ec43e.4477062@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #96704 |
supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: > On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 10:37:19 AM UTC-6, Keith Thompson wrote: > > supercat writes: > > > That's a key part of what I would suggest he > > > would have said if he'd intended anything resembling the behavior of > > > modern compilers. > > > > Surely the phrase "not defined by the language" is clear enough. > > The language is usable on platforms which implement silent wraparound in > hardware and also on platforms that don't. Exactly. This does not have to be specified even further. Your expectations are like wanting the Highway Code to specify that you have to stop at a red traffic light, "regardless of whether your vehicle is front- or rear-braked". The addition is unnecessary in both cases: you have to stop at a red light, and overflow is undefined, regardless of what additional clauses you can invent. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-16 10:31 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <kfnoa1fqnt9.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> |
| In reply to | #96634 |
supercat@casperkitty.com writes: > On Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 12:51:41 PM UTC-6, Tim Rentsch wrote: >> supercat writes: >>> Dennis Ritchie seems to have planned that integer overflow would wrap >>> around on the PDP-11 implementation, [...] >> >> s/planned/noticed/ > > His printf code tests for -32768 by checking if a variable isn't zero but > negating it leaves the value unmodified. That would make no sense if he > didn't plan on the PDP wrapping what should be +32768 to -32768. s/plan on the PDP wrapping/notice that the PDP-11 would wrap/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-05 08:14 +1300 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <e844vuFpc20U2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #95750 |
On 11/ 5/16 03:57 AM, supercat@casperkitty.com wrote: > On Friday, November 4, 2016 at 3:53:53 AM UTC-5, David Brown wrote: >> On 03/11/16 19:59, Ian Collins wrote: >> I was doing that on 68k's (the MC68332, to be precise - you might have >> come across it) in the late nineties. And I was doing it well into the >> naughties with compilers for small embedded micros. >> >> I don't miss that work - progress in development tools is a good thing. > > It's a fine thing if the tools continue to support old semantics. In some > cases, though, some of the semantics that old tools naturally supported > allowed things to be written more readably and/or efficiently than would > be possible using modern tools. To my mind, ditching the old semantics > is a step backward. In some cases? Older compilers lacked the sophisticated optimisations we have become used to so they had to fall back to lower level fiddles. I would love to have the chance to rebuild some of my old projects with a modern compiler and see how much faster the code runs. It my not be much faster because of all of the work I had to do to squeeze performance out of the old tools. But I bet it would run much faster than the more readable original code ran before all those days and weeks of assembly analysis and code restructures. Like David, I don't miss that work. -- Ian
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 21:43 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <87ins5k15t.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #95572 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 02/11/2016 02:06, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >>> It seems to me that they are problematic as you don't often see code >>> like this: > >>> (*A)[i]; // A is pointer to array > >>> You will see instead: > >>> A[i]; // A is now pointer to array element, and is now >>> // indistinguishable from a regular array > >>> If the syntax for the first set hadn't involved those parentheses, >> <snip> >>> then probably it wouldn't have been necessary to invent the forms in >>> that middle set. >> >> Are you trying to spread more disinformation by suggesting that A[i] is >> an alternative, parenthesis free, version of (*A)[i]? > > Yes, exactly that. Or at least when the A in A[i] is a pointer to an > array element. You agree that you are trying to spread disinformation? > If the INTENTION is to have some sort of dynamically allocated array > of T, then the choice is between A being a T* type and a T(*)[] type. No, you are confusing the object with the way it is accessed. If the intention is to have a dynamically allocated array of T, you just call malloc with the right size as its argument. The choice of what pointer type you use depends on how you want to access the array. Some people might use void * if they just want to zero it and pass it off to some other function. You might use char * if you need to fiddle with the byte-level representation of your Ts. If, as is most likely, you just want access to the elements you'd use a T * because pointer arithmetic gives you exactly what you want. The cases where you want a T(*)[] are much rarer, but by no means non-existent (particularly with VLAs). > And the choice for accessing the element is between A[i] and (*A)[i]. > > Who's going to choose the type and access code that has the brackets? > Nobody (not even me if I had to write the C myself). > > But with the choice between T and T*[], and A[] and A*[], it's a > closer call. The versions with * express much more clearly what is > intended, the reader doesn't have to double-guess whether a T* points > to to the start of an array or just is just a pointer, and having to > write the "*" to do that is not too onerous. > > It's all win-win. Flying cars are better than road ones. Mind you, there aren't any usable ones yet, and maybe implementing them will be expensive. And who knows if there are any knock-on effects we've not yet thought through. > But that fact that no one can see that, or is > pretending not to (perhaps because it's far too late to fix now), is > not surprising any more. I bet everyone here has their own "better C" but I, for one, don't think anyone should care about mine, and I certainly think we'd be drowned in off-topic posts if everyone brought up their own pet improvements. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-02 16:16 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <233148f2-19b4-4768-b8bb-f9867d76c8f0@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #95625 |
W dniu środa, 2 listopada 2016 22:44:05 UTC+1 użytkownik Ben Bacarisse napisał: > > I bet everyone here has their own "better C" but I, for one, don't think > anyone should care about mine, and I certainly think we'd be drowned in > off-topic posts if everyone brought up their own pet improvements. > some ideas are low quality some are high quality, c itself is a pack of ideas, one could consider both those old ideas and new ideas (on a ground of 'old' ideas or related etc) (worth mention that those old ideas are not quite fully understood ;c ) imo those people whop do not want discuss thiose new ideas should make a club and just not interfering with peoople who like to do that (instead of tryin to make thiose who are interested not interested - which seem mightly stupid) [though as i said as to ideas some are good some are bad, for example i am personally not much interested to dwell in all that bad ones, (good ones have some value but if someone would like to really made discusion what is wORTH to do it is quite other story (as i said on other thread some pessimistic view on this (as discussing language is not real programming which is quite another topic sadly totaly absent here (sadly for one who would like really to code something - yawn)))]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 00:05 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <nvdv04$g49$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95625 |
On 02/11/2016 21:43, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> Yes, exactly that. Or at least when the A in A[i] is a pointer to an >> array element. > > You agree that you are trying to spread disinformation? On the subject of pointers to arrays and their merits, you are either never going to understand, or are pretending not to understand. So I'll drop that. The points I want to make have been made. I am not however spreading disinformation just because my view of C is wider than your narrow one. >> It's all win-win. > > Flying cars are better than road ones. Who's talking about flying cars? Just ones where you can get in through the doors and not have to climb in through the boot will do! [1] > I bet everyone here has their own "better C" but I, for one, don't think > anyone should care about mine, and I certainly think we'd be drowned in > off-topic posts if everyone brought up their own pet improvements. Why off-topic? Informal posts about language proposals should be welcome, even if just for a laugh. But I like the way you think changing the type declarations is a pet improvement. [1] Or the 'trunk' in US-speak. I did have a car where you had to do exactly that because the door locks were broken. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 06:07 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <87bmxxm6zs.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #95631 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > I am not however spreading disinformation just because my view of C is > wider than your narrow one. Have you considered, even for a second, the possibility that you might be wrong?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 01:59 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <5a3360c6-f89c-4382-adc5-75d63eaef963@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #95634 |
W dniu czwartek, 3 listopada 2016 07:07:28 UTC+1 użytkownik gwowen napisał: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > > > I am not however spreading disinformation just because my view of C is > > wider than your narrow one. > > Have you considered, even for a second, the possibility that you might > be wrong? i want to denote and show one thing - when the discusion was here quiet merithorical (on subject) and in normal calm quiet comfortable mood it was okay - then couple group of this group primitives (maybe i will skip names this way but i count at lest five) started to go personal on bartc now whoi is the 'troll' here - you got plain proof (as usual brainles user try to jump on top of somebody for god knows the reason, clowns will be clowns but i suggest to get back to previous totali non-personal mode which is very suitable)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 02:19 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <2d29aa57-f6ec-40ba-8e3d-6093587dc65e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #95635 |
W dniu czwartek, 3 listopada 2016 09:59:42 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał: > W dniu czwartek, 3 listopada 2016 07:07:28 UTC+1 użytkownik gwowen napisał: > > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > > > > > I am not however spreading disinformation just because my view of C is > > > wider than your narrow one. > > > > Have you considered, even for a second, the possibility that you might > > be wrong? > > i want to denote and show one thing - when the discusion was here quiet merithorical (on subject) and in normal calm quiet comfortable mood it was okay - then couple group of this group primitives (maybe i will skip names this way but i count at lest five) started to go personal on bartc > > now whoi is the 'troll' here - you got plain proof (as usual brainles user try to jump on top of somebody for god knows the reason, clowns will be clowns but i suggest to get back to previous totali non-personal mode which is very suitable) your chance is to revert back to TOTALLY UNPERSONAL mode, 9you should in general maybe feel what is that) not only such eruptions like "I was just wondering if his domain of ignorance was limited to C or encompasses other areas as well. " which is totaly shamlessly pig but also "Have you considered, even for a second, the possibility that you might be wrong? " (which is quite primitive (more by first part than the second)) is far not allowed
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 03:25 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <e5873cc2-78ce-4061-9a76-486c07b3a65a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #95636 |
W dniu czwartek, 3 listopada 2016 10:19:40 UTC+1 użytkownik fir napisał: > > your chance is to revert back to TOTALLY UNPERSONAL mode, 9you should in general maybe feel what is that) > i may tell you maybe also WHY you should do that.. you should do that becouse goin personal is boring (yet conventional and stupid) when keeping totaly unpersonal higher calm mood is quite good (feels interesting to me and may bring quite more interesting mood and 'outcome')
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 10:51 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <nvf4ra$dk0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95634 |
On 03/11/2016 06:07, Gareth Owen wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >> I am not however spreading disinformation just because my view of C is >> wider than your narrow one. > > Have you considered, even for a second, the possibility that you might > be wrong? > Go back and show me what I said that was wrong. And without having to resort to saying that 6.17.348p4 defines such and such a word differently, therefore my entire argument is invalid. It seems 'pointers to arrays' simply do not exist in C as far as Ben Bacarisse is concerned. Or if he grudgingly admits they might, then they are still dismissed as irrelevant. Yet I use them in C and they work. I implement the concept in other languages and they work even better. I really doubt whether I'm wrong. It seems the 'pointer to first element of array' idiom is so ingrained with the regulars that the possibility of doing it any other way is inconceivable. (I was constantly being told I was simply wrong about C's 'for' statement, and now it seems that the authors of Rust feel exactly the same way. Therefore they must be wrong too.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-11-03 11:58 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: usecases of void foo(char **b) {} |
| Message-ID | <nvf8ou$r49$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #95638 |
On 03/11/16 10:51, BartC wrote: > On 03/11/2016 06:07, Gareth Owen wrote: >> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> >>> I am not however spreading disinformation just because my view of C is >>> wider than your narrow one. >> >> Have you considered, even for a second, the possibility that you might >> be wrong? >> > > Go back and show me what I said that was wrong. If you've already forgotten all the mistakes we've pointed out in your reasoning and in your understanding of C, then there's no point in showing you again, because in a week you'll have forgotten again. You're supposed to learn from what you read here. That you have not done so does not bode well for the future. > And without having to resort to saying that 6.17.348p4 defines such and > such a word differently, therefore my entire argument is invalid. Section 6 only goes up to paragraph 11. Therefore your entire argument is invalid. > It seems 'pointers to arrays' simply do not exist in C as far as Ben > Bacarisse is concerned. Or if he grudgingly admits they might, then they > are still dismissed as irrelevant. Ben knows full well that C has pointers to arrays. That they are irrelevant is often true - if you've got an array already, you don't often need a pointer to it. (Note that "don't often need" != "never need".) > Yet I use them in C and they work. Of course they work. > I implement the concept in other > languages and they work even better. I really doubt whether I'm wrong. Yes, I understand that you don't believe you're wrong. That is one of the mistakes you're making. > It seems the 'pointer to first element of array' idiom is so ingrained > with the regulars that the possibility of doing it any other way is > inconceivable. That depends on what "it" is. Pointers are often used for pointing to the first element of an array. They are also often used for other purposes. For example, they can be iterated through an array. Or they can be used to point at nodes in a graph. Or they can be used for pointing at individual objects or functions. So what do you mean by "it"? > (I was constantly being told I was simply wrong about C's 'for' > statement, and now it seems that the authors of Rust feel exactly the > same way. Therefore they must be wrong too.) Not for Rust, maybe. But they'd be wrong for C. -- 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 10 of 21 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 21 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web