Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #94683 > unrolled thread
| Started by | MehdiAmini <atorrses@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-10 15:51 +0000 |
| Last post | 2016-10-10 15:11 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 183 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
C Programming Tutorial on Youtube MehdiAmini <atorrses@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 15:51 +0000
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-10 17:14 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Real Troll <real.troll@trolls.com> - 2016-10-10 13:25 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-10 11:06 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-10 22:18 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-10 16:29 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-11 00:07 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-11 08:36 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 09:51 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-11 07:09 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 09:48 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-11 10:10 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 11:54 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-11 08:13 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-11 07:49 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-11 12:28 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-11 09:51 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-11 21:02 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-10-13 14:48 +0200
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-13 10:20 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-15 12:18 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-15 16:47 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-15 14:31 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-15 15:21 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-15 22:47 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-16 05:19 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 08:37 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-16 17:59 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 15:48 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 00:27 +0300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-16 17:42 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-10-17 10:23 +0300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 09:07 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 18:28 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-17 10:08 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 17:51 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-10-18 13:29 +0300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-10-18 13:24 +0300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-16 13:29 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-16 18:36 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 11:39 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 15:54 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-16 15:38 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-16 23:53 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 19:40 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-17 06:31 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 09:09 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-17 14:16 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 19:40 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-16 19:23 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-16 22:33 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-10-16 20:09 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 09:13 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-10-17 10:58 +0200
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 09:14 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-17 07:44 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-17 13:22 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 17:55 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 09:22 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-17 08:32 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 17:21 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube jameskuyper@verizon.net - 2016-10-17 16:07 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2016-10-17 21:00 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 21:49 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-18 10:45 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-10-17 10:55 +0200
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anand Hariharan <mailto.anand.hariharan@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 16:01 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-17 19:29 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-18 00:33 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-18 08:41 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-18 01:54 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-18 08:28 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 10:05 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-11 11:12 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 11:52 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 12:18 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-11 22:15 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 14:40 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-11 23:45 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 18:08 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-11 18:41 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-11 18:55 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-10-14 22:09 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-15 10:51 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-15 19:11 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-15 21:14 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-15 22:33 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-15 23:13 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-15 15:34 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-16 00:37 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-16 01:00 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-17 17:48 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-17 20:09 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-15 23:55 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-15 16:19 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-16 00:55 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-16 01:11 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-16 22:17 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-16 23:11 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-10-16 19:55 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-17 01:12 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-17 01:56 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-17 14:27 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-16 04:55 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-16 11:49 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-15 14:55 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-15 12:47 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-15 11:02 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-15 12:12 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-10-15 14:56 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-17 05:27 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-17 08:41 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-17 10:18 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-17 11:34 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-10-18 08:05 +1300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-17 12:39 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-17 21:17 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-10-17 22:46 +0200
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-10-18 14:06 +0300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-18 12:18 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2016-10-20 15:09 +0300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-20 14:29 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2016-10-23 13:15 +0000
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.com> - 2016-11-06 16:17 +0300
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-11-07 11:21 -0800
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-10-18 13:59 +0200
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-18 14:32 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 06:57 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-12 10:25 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 13:14 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-12 16:44 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 16:53 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-12 18:37 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 18:50 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-12 19:41 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 20:18 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-12 12:56 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-12 21:04 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-12 14:18 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-12 15:12 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-13 01:49 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-13 09:55 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-13 02:09 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-13 10:35 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-13 08:23 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 18:49 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 10:52 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-12 12:06 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-12 19:41 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-13 01:59 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-13 10:34 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-13 13:08 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-13 05:22 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-13 13:29 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-13 08:31 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-13 08:31 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-13 18:57 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-13 19:26 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-13 08:27 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-10-15 15:09 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-16 16:45 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-16 16:51 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-13 12:04 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-13 13:17 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-13 14:17 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-10-13 20:14 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-10-13 22:00 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-10-12 08:14 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-12 05:28 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 13:30 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 13:59 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-12 08:47 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 05:29 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-10-12 08:31 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-10-11 18:29 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 06:55 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 17:54 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 18:09 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-12 13:46 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-10-12 18:54 +0100
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-10-12 13:46 -0700
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-10-10 18:01 -0400
Re: C Programming Tutorial on Youtube supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-10-10 15:11 -0700
Page 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 16:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87bmykti0g.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #94885 |
Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> writes: > What I find really bothersome is not his holding a completely > bizarro worldview, but his stubborn insistence that other > people either hold the same worldview or are mistaken. Add > to that the frosting on the cake that AFAICT no one other than > he does hold the same worldview. The height of ignorance, or > the height of arrogance? It's hard to say which. Why not both?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-16 16:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nu07mc$a39$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94926 |
On 16/10/16 16:45, Gareth Owen wrote: > Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> writes: > >> What I find really bothersome is not his holding a completely >> bizarro worldview, but his stubborn insistence that other >> people either hold the same worldview or are mistaken. Add >> to that the frosting on the cake that AFAICT no one other than >> he does hold the same worldview. The height of ignorance, or >> the height of arrogance? It's hard to say which. > > Why not both? They are two paths up the same mountain. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 12:04 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ntnpno$tla$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94787 |
On 12/10/2016 19:41, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > >> On 12/10/2016 13:14, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>> On 12/10/16 10:25, BartC wrote: >>>> On 12/10/2016 06:57, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>> On 12/10/16 02:41, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>>> <snip> >>>>>> int buff[1024]; >>>>>> >>>>>> buff is a constant pointer >>>>> >>>>> Wrong. It is an array of 1024 int objects. >>>> >>>> Within the constraints of C. >>> >>> Right. Check the newsgroup title. >> >> So? Someone might want to have a constant pointer to a block of >> ints. Then the closest they can get to it is the above. > > In what way would that person be unhappy with a C array of ints, a > pointer value to the first of which is so readily available? Are you > just arguing about the words? My thinking is just a bit different. I see these different categories of pointer and array types: (1) Pointer to a single object (including to a whole array) (2) Pointer to multiple objects (or to a block of memory) (3) Array of objects I like to keep these separate. C likes to mix them up. In the case of (2), sometimes pointers can point to heterogeneous sets of objects, or where the target (ie. whatever is at pointer+offset) can be interpreted in several ways. Then that is harder to reconcile with the notion of an array of identical objects. (My own language doesn't distinguish between (1) and (2) either; both can be offsetted or incremented. But it keeps (3) entirely separate: arrays are indexed, pointers are dereferenced, but not vice-versa. That makes it more awkward to specifier array slices compared with using (2)-class pointers, but overall I think it is much better and more disciplined: you have to choose between playing with low-level pointers and blocks, or slightly higher-level arrays.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 13:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87vaww789y.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #94808 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 12/10/2016 19:41, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> >>> On 12/10/2016 13:14, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> On 12/10/16 10:25, BartC wrote: >>>>> On 12/10/2016 06:57, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>>> On 12/10/16 02:41, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>> int buff[1024]; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> buff is a constant pointer >>>>>> >>>>>> Wrong. It is an array of 1024 int objects. >>>>> >>>>> Within the constraints of C. >>>> >>>> Right. Check the newsgroup title. >>> >>> So? Someone might want to have a constant pointer to a block of >>> ints. Then the closest they can get to it is the above. >> >> In what way would that person be unhappy with a C array of ints, a >> pointer value to the first of which is so readily available? Are you >> just arguing about the words? > > My thinking is just a bit different. I see these different categories > of pointer and array types: > > (1) Pointer to a single object (including to a whole array) > (2) Pointer to multiple objects (or to a block of memory) > (3) Array of objects > > I like to keep these separate. C likes to mix them up. C does not mix up 3 with 1 and 2. Every time someone says that arrays are pointers or that C has no expressions with array type, a little byte dies and the world get more confused about C. C does not let you do much with arrays, but it has them and it does not mix them up with pointers, it simply converts array-valued expressions to pointer values. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 14:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <nto1g4$pol$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94816 |
On 13/10/2016 13:17, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>
>> On 12/10/2016 19:41, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
>>>
>>>> On 12/10/2016 13:14, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>> On 12/10/16 10:25, BartC wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/10/2016 06:57, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/10/16 02:41, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>>> int buff[1024];
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> buff is a constant pointer
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong. It is an array of 1024 int objects.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Within the constraints of C.
>>>>>
>>>>> Right. Check the newsgroup title.
>>>>
>>>> So? Someone might want to have a constant pointer to a block of
>>>> ints. Then the closest they can get to it is the above.
>>>
>>> In what way would that person be unhappy with a C array of ints, a
>>> pointer value to the first of which is so readily available? Are you
>>> just arguing about the words?
>>
>> My thinking is just a bit different. I see these different categories
>> of pointer and array types:
>>
>> (1) Pointer to a single object (including to a whole array)
>> (2) Pointer to multiple objects (or to a block of memory)
>> (3) Array of objects
>>
>> I like to keep these separate. C likes to mix them up.
>
> C does not mix up 3 with 1 and 2.
The /use/ of arrays certainly is mixed up. Examples:
void fn(int* A) {A[234];}
....
int* P = malloc(...);
fn(p);
Here, we want to create a dynamic array, then pass that array (or some
sort of reference to it) to a function.
But look at the above: the function takes a pointer to T not an array of
T. The dynamic array is represented as a pointer to T not a pointer to
an array. It's passed as a pointer to T not as a pointer to array.
Yet inside the function, it's accessed like an array. And what we're
trying to do is working with arrays.
So while the language will not technically mix them up (so you can't
asssign a pointer to T to a pointer to array of T for example), the way
C is typically used will do so. Thus effectively mixing up (2) or (3).
Here's how it could be done properly:
void fn(int (*A)) {(*A)[234];}
...
int (*P)[] = malloc(...)
fn(p);
It doesn't mix up (2) and (3). It uses (1) and (3) in the complementary
way they are designed to be used.
But I suspect that you will argue that all dynamic array handling in C
can be done with those type-2 pointers; arrays don't need to come it
into it all (the A[234] can be a synonym for *(A+234)), so they cannot
be conflated with pointers!
--
Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 20:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <871szk6oz4.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #94820 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 13/10/2016 13:17, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> >>> On 12/10/2016 19:41, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >>>> BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 12/10/2016 13:14, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>>> On 12/10/16 10:25, BartC wrote: >>>>>>> On 12/10/2016 06:57, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>>>>>> On 12/10/16 02:41, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>>>>>> <snip> >>>>>>>>> int buff[1024]; >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> buff is a constant pointer >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Wrong. It is an array of 1024 int objects. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Within the constraints of C. >>>>>> >>>>>> Right. Check the newsgroup title. >>>>> >>>>> So? Someone might want to have a constant pointer to a block of >>>>> ints. Then the closest they can get to it is the above. >>>> >>>> In what way would that person be unhappy with a C array of ints, a >>>> pointer value to the first of which is so readily available? Are you >>>> just arguing about the words? >>> >>> My thinking is just a bit different. I see these different categories >>> of pointer and array types: >>> >>> (1) Pointer to a single object (including to a whole array) >>> (2) Pointer to multiple objects (or to a block of memory) >>> (3) Array of objects >>> >>> I like to keep these separate. C likes to mix them up. >> >> C does not mix up 3 with 1 and 2. > > The /use/ of arrays certainly is mixed up. Almost every use of an array yields a pointer, so if that's what you mean by "mixed up", I agree. Since I don't have an anti-C agenda, I'd say that the use of arrays is intimately tied to pointers, but that's just /my/ spin on it. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-13 22:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ntosl1$1co$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94840 |
On 13/10/2016 20:14, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: >> The /use/ of arrays certainly is mixed up. > > Almost every use of an array yields a pointer, so if that's what you > mean by "mixed up", I agree. Since I don't have an anti-C agenda, I'd > say that the use of arrays is intimately tied to pointers, but that's > just /my/ spin on it. I gave an example that uses only (1) and (3) of my categories (pointers to one object, and arrays). And there the two are not irrevocably linked since the pointer is simply used as an indirection mechanism in the same way you can have a pointer to anything, not just an array. It is also possible to work that example using only (1) and (2), and leave arrays out of it completely. If you want to make the argument that, even if using (*A)[i], where, while dereferencing a pointer-to-array and indexing the result, some pointer-to-element-of-A leaps into existence momentarily, therefore proving that arrays and pointers must be linked, then that's fine. Except not everyone will be thinking of it like that (to me it would be an implementation detail; the same term in another language might define it differently). That fact is that C is capable of making the distinctions I like, but common usage of it doesn't do that. Ergo, they are mixed up. -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 08:14 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <POpLz.48707$yA2.5504@fx29.iad> |
| In reply to | #94763 |
On 10/12/16 5:25 AM, BartC wrote: > On 12/10/2016 06:57, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 12/10/16 02:41, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> <snip> >>> int buff[1024]; >>> >>> buff is a constant pointer >> >> Wrong. It is an array of 1024 int objects. > > Within the constraints of C. > > Actually, in an implementation, buff /is/ a constant (not const) > pointer, or an 'immediate' address: > > int buff[1024]; // assume in file scope > buff; > > might generate code like this: > > buff: resb 4096 # reserve 4096 bytes > .... > mov R0,buff # immediate load > > > If you did want a constant pointer to a block of 1024 integers (I'll > keep away from Malcolm's array/buffer thing), the ASM representation > would be no different. > > What C has that ASM doesn't is being able to superimpose a type system > that allows you to do 'sizeof buff', or writing buff[i] without > specifying an index scale factor. It's a bit more high level. Enough to > say that C has array objects, although it doesn't seem too keen about > it: it appears to be happier manipulating pointers. > But sizeof buff != sizeof(int*) so buff isn't a pointer, and the type of &buff isn't pointer to a constant pointer to int, but a pointer to an array of int. The confusion comes from the fact that in very many situations, 'buff' (an array object) converts itself into the equivalent'&(buff[0])' (a pointer value, the address of the first member of the array buff), as what happens above. buff ISN'T &(buff[0]), it just converts to that for many purposes. Technically, it isn't even the conversion listed, as the expression actually uses that conversion, when you mention buff, in other than the few cases specifically mentioned, that array object 'decays' into a pointer value (but it isn't one itse;f) and this pointer value can then be indexed off of. The thinking of an array as a 'constant pointer' may have some use in understanding that conversion, but it also can get one into a lot of trouble when you hit the cases where it doesn't hold.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 05:28 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f24d4a3b-8625-489f-9f90-e56748983c16@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #94765 |
On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 1:16:53 PM UTC+1, Richard Damon wrote: > On 10/12/16 5:25 AM, BartC wrote: > > On 12/10/2016 06:57, Richard Heathfield wrote: > >> On 12/10/16 02:41, Malcolm McLean wrote: > >> <snip> > >>> int buff[1024]; > >>> > >>> buff is a constant pointer > >> > >> Wrong. It is an array of 1024 int objects. > > > > Within the constraints of C. > > > > Actually, in an implementation, buff /is/ a constant (not const) > > pointer, or an 'immediate' address: > > > > int buff[1024]; // assume in file scope > > buff; > > > > might generate code like this: > > > > buff: resb 4096 # reserve 4096 bytes > > .... > > mov R0,buff # immediate load > > > > > > If you did want a constant pointer to a block of 1024 integers (I'll > > keep away from Malcolm's array/buffer thing), the ASM representation > > would be no different. > > > > What C has that ASM doesn't is being able to superimpose a type system > > that allows you to do 'sizeof buff', or writing buff[i] without > > specifying an index scale factor. It's a bit more high level. Enough to > > say that C has array objects, although it doesn't seem too keen about > > it: it appears to be happier manipulating pointers. > > > > But sizeof buff != sizeof(int*) so buff isn't a pointer, and the type of > &buff isn't pointer to a constant pointer to int, but a pointer to an > array of int. > There are few odd corners of syntax, admittedly.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 13:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ntladb$6kp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94765 |
On 12/10/16 13:25, Stefan Ram wrote: > Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes: >> The thinking of an array as a 'constant pointer' may have some use in >> understanding that conversion, but it also can get one into a lot of >> trouble when you hit the cases where it doesn't hold. > > In my beginner's course, I do not want the students to think > much about complex types. I tell them that "char*" is the > type of string literals But it isn't. String literals have array type, not pointer type. -- Richard Heathfield Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk "Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999 Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 13:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ntlc2t$crs$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94769 |
On 12/10/16 13:50, Stefan Ram wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >> On 12/10/16 13:25, Stefan Ram wrote: >>> Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes: >>>> The thinking of an array as a 'constant pointer' may have some use in >>>> understanding that conversion, but it also can get one into a lot of >>>> trouble when you hit the cases where it doesn't hold. >>> In my beginner's course, I do not want the students to think >>> much about complex types. I tell them that "char*" is the >>> type of string literals >> But it isn't. String literals have array type, not pointer type. > > That's correct. String literals have array type, not pointer type. > Yet I tell that they have pointer type. Once I've read that... <snip> ...nothing else needs saying. -- 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 | 2016-10-12 08:47 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lntwchlgbh.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #94769 |
ram@zedat.fu-berlin.de (Stefan Ram) writes:
> Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes:
>>On 12/10/16 13:25, Stefan Ram wrote:
>>>Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> writes:
>>>>The thinking of an array as a 'constant pointer' may have some use in
>>>>understanding that conversion, but it also can get one into a lot of
>>>>trouble when you hit the cases where it doesn't hold.
>>>In my beginner's course, I do not want the students to think
>>>much about complex types. I tell them that "char*" is the
>>>type of string literals
>>But it isn't. String literals have array type, not pointer type.
>
> That's correct. String literals have array type, not pointer type.
> Yet I tell that they have pointer type.
I admit that I am not a teacher, however I suggest that you have
insufficient faith in your students' ability to understand the truth
and to accept things that they don't yet understand.
The misconception that "arrays are just pointers" is a real problem.
Please don't make it worse.
> IIRC, C does not have the concept of »subtypes«, but I deem an
> expression e to be of a subtype of a type T, when a function
> declared as
>
> void f( T t ){}
>
> can be called with »f( e )«.
That doesn't make sense. Where e is an array object and T is a pointer
type, the call is valid because the value is *converted*, not because
e's type is in any sense a "subtype" of T.
> With this definition, »char const[ 4 ]« is a subtype of »char *«,
> and in that sense an expression with the type »char const[ 4 ]«
> also "has" the type »char *«.
>
> I wouldn't object when this is being called a "lie". But it is
> not that far from the truth.
It is a lie, and it is very far from the truth. More than that,
it's a *plausible* lie that creates a conceptual trap that can be
difficult to get out of. To some extent I blame the design of C
for this situation; for historical reasons it almost seems designed to
create this kind of confusion. I suggest that it's your job as a
teacher to avoid this confusion, not to spread it.
> Newtonian physics is taught in schools even though it has been
> falsified by experimental results. So all teachers teaching it
> "lie". Do we want to start to teach quantum physics and relativity
> to first-graders? (UK: "Key Stage 1, Year 2ers")
All physical theories are approximate descriptions of reality. There
are domains in which quantum mechanics and relativity break down, or at
least don't yet cover.
If we ask a physics student to compute the trajectory of a projectile
"ignoring air resistance", that's not a lie, it's an *acknowledged*
simplification. Assuming Newtonian mechanics rather than relativity can
be the same thing.
If I were teaching introductory physics, sure, I'd start with Newtonian
mechanics -- but I'd spend a couple of minutes mentioning that it's an
approximation that works well enough in everyday circumstances, and that
special and general relativity are better approximations. (If I didn't,
a student who's heard of relativity would probably bring it up.)
If I were teaching introductory C, I probably wouldn't explain the
*actual* relationship between arrays and pointers right away, but I
certainly wouldn't claim that string literals are pointers.
You might need to present programs that pass string literals to
functions that require a `const char*` argument. If you're not ready to
explain the semantics, you can simply ask the students to accept it for
now, and the details will be explained later. (You might even briefly
explain what's actually going on with the proviso that they are not
expected to understand it yet; some of the more clever students will
likely understand it anyway.)
--
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 | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 05:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <d94fe74a-5d18-4ea3-881c-b8cff6ca8800@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #94763 |
Bart wrote: > Richard Heathfield wrote: > > Malcolm McLean wrote: > > > <snip> > > > int buff[1024]; > > > > > > buff is a constant pointer > > > > Wrong. It is an array of 1024 int objects. > > Within the constraints of C. > > Actually, in an implementation, buff /is/ a constant (not const) > pointer, or an 'immediate' address... You are correct in implementation. C doesn't see it that way, but when C is projected onto a real hardware implementation, that becomes exactly what it is. Best regards, Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 08:31 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lny41tlh20.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #94763 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes:
> On 12/10/2016 06:57, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 12/10/16 02:41, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> int buff[1024];
>>>
>>> buff is a constant pointer
>>
>> Wrong. It is an array of 1024 int objects.
>
> Within the constraints of C.
What other constraints would be relevant in comp.lang.c? Why is that
worth mentioning?
> Actually, in an implementation, buff /is/ a constant (not const)
> pointer, or an 'immediate' address:
>
> int buff[1024]; // assume in file scope
> buff;
The expression `buff` may or may not be an expression of pointer type,
after the compile-time implicit array-to-pointer conversion.
If by "buff" we mean the object with that name, then it is an array
object, not a pointer object.
This is all actually quite easy to explain, but as usual you insist
on talking about it in the most confusing possible manner.
[...]
--
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 | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 18:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <110066ca-807c-4913-8d6c-9e5a9f2032fb@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #94751 |
On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 11:46:04 PM UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 11/10/16 22:15, BartC wrote: > > > A throwaway remark about a 'pointer variable' I think is perfectly fine > > for something targeted at a complete beginner. > > There we will have to differ, then. Complete beginners should not be > told lies by their teachers. > People who understand a subject well but don't know much about teaching often criticise teachers for mistakes or inaccuracies. But often it's better to explain the essentials first. As the maths joke has it, a man goes through airport security and claims to be a maths PhD. The girl on security is a bit suspicious, so she decides to check him out. "OK, whats 567 plus 328?" she asks. "Over what field?"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 06:55 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ntkj8g$t52$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94755 |
On 12/10/16 02:29, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 11:46:04 PM UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote: <snip> >> Complete beginners should not be >> told lies by their teachers. >> > People who understand a subject well but don't know much about > teaching often criticise teachers for mistakes or inaccuracies. People who understand teaching well but don't know much about their subject often end up teaching people stuff that's Just Wrong, resulting in the perpetuation of myths. -- 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 | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 17:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87oa2pcxt7.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #94760 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > On 12/10/16 02:29, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 11:46:04 PM UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote: > <snip> >>> Complete beginners should not be >>> told lies by their teachers. >>> >> People who understand a subject well but don't know much about >> teaching often criticise teachers for mistakes or inaccuracies. > > People who understand teaching well but don't know much about their > subject often end up teaching people stuff that's Just Wrong, > resulting in the perpetuation of myths. Well ... up to a point. Its perfectly reasonable to teach primary school children "The Earth orbits the Sun", rather than attempt to get them to parse "The Earth and Sun orbit their mutual center of gravity", or "The Earth and Sun follow straight lines through four dimensional space-time, which has curvature induced by the mass of all the planets in the existence"
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 18:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ntlqn0$4c5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94779 |
On 12/10/16 17:54, Gareth Owen wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > >> On 12/10/16 02:29, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> On Tuesday, October 11, 2016 at 11:46:04 PM UTC+1, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> <snip> >>>> Complete beginners should not be >>>> told lies by their teachers. >>>> >>> People who understand a subject well but don't know much about >>> teaching often criticise teachers for mistakes or inaccuracies. >> >> People who understand teaching well but don't know much about their >> subject often end up teaching people stuff that's Just Wrong, >> resulting in the perpetuation of myths. > > Well ... up to a point. > > Its perfectly reasonable to teach primary school children > > "The Earth orbits the Sun", Yes, but that's not a lie. The Earth /does/ orbit the Sun. Or the teacher, with rather less justification but just as much veracity and significantly more observational evidence, could say that the Sun orbits the Earth. Because it /does/ orbit the Earth. > rather than attempt to get them to parse > > "The Earth and Sun orbit their mutual center of gravity", Yeah, I'd sack the teacher for misspelling "centre". :-) Seriously, that, too, is a perfectly valid description of what's going on (except that I'd say 'mass' rather than 'gravity'), /provided/ that one explicitly points out that one is ignoring the perturbing effects of other masses (such as the Moon, the planets, the odd comet, occasional space probes, asteroids, stars, black holes...) > or > > "The Earth and Sun follow straight lines through four dimensional > space-time, which has curvature induced by the mass of all the planets > in the existence" Except in Missouri. -- 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 | "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 13:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <1a05b385-ab83-d31c-37d0-0df881ea1eda@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #94780 |
On 10/12/2016 01:09 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 12/10/16 17:54, Gareth Owen wrote: ... >> "The Earth and Sun orbit their mutual center of gravity", > > Yeah, I'd sack the teacher for misspelling "centre". :-) You could get sued for that (and not just because Americans are addicted to lawsuits) if you tried giving that as an excuse for firing someone employed in the US. :-)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-12 18:54 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <ntltbo$d98$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #94782 |
On 12/10/16 18:46, James R. Kuyper wrote: > On 10/12/2016 01:09 PM, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 12/10/16 17:54, Gareth Owen wrote: > ... >>> "The Earth and Sun orbit their mutual center of gravity", >> >> Yeah, I'd sack the teacher for misspelling "centre". :-) > > You could get sued for that (and not just because Americans are addicted > to lawsuits) if you tried giving that as an excuse for firing someone > employed in the US. :-) Don't worry, James. I'd find another reason to put on the form. But that would be the /real/ reason. -- 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 9 of 10 — ← Prev page 1 … 7 8 [9] 10 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web