Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #133735 > unrolled thread
| Started by | skybuck2000@hotmail.com |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-08-13 12:53 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-10-10 18:24 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 354 — 27 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
>< swap operator skybuck2000@hotmail.com - 2018-08-13 12:53 -0700
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 16:05 -0400
Re: >< swap operator fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-08-13 13:46 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2018-08-14 11:19 +0300
Re: >< swap operator skybuck2000@hotmail.com - 2018-08-14 06:16 -0700
Re: >< swap operator bart4858@gmail.com - 2018-08-14 07:50 -0700
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-08-14 16:59 +0200
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-08-14 10:46 -0700
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-08-14 20:03 +0200
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-08-14 11:37 -0700
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-08-14 21:16 +0200
Re: >< swap operator fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-08-14 11:32 -0700
Re: >< swap operator bart4858@gmail.com - 2018-08-14 16:24 -0700
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-08-15 11:32 +0200
Re: >< swap operator skybuck2000@hotmail.com - 2018-10-01 07:46 -0700
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 05:20 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-02 13:58 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-02 14:08 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 09:16 -0400
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-02 15:35 +0200
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 09:43 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-02 10:51 -0700
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 09:08 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-02 15:26 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 10:52 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-02 17:57 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:27 -0400
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 11:52 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-02 20:48 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 15:56 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:05 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-02 13:26 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-02 21:36 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-02 13:47 -0700
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-03 11:14 +0200
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 16:37 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-02 22:02 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 17:16 -0400
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-03 11:25 +0200
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-03 10:52 +0100
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-03 14:29 +0200
Re: >< swap operator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 05:52 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-03 21:31 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 16:47 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-04 03:43 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 22:47 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-04 04:25 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 20:44 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-04 11:53 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 05:15 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-04 13:48 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 10:56 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-04 17:47 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 11:01 -0700
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-04 22:15 +0200
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 16:19 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-04 21:42 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 15:01 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-04 23:59 +0100
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-05 09:54 +0200
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-05 18:03 +0100
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-05 21:08 +0200
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-05 20:31 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2018-10-05 15:59 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-05 21:18 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-06 03:51 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-06 12:19 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-06 19:49 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-07 12:25 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-07 14:19 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 06:56 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-07 16:30 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-09 13:17 +0200
C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-09 13:07 +0000
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-09 14:27 +0100
Re: C idioms Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-10 00:05 +0100
Re: C idioms Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-10 02:03 +0100
Re: C idioms Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-11 01:05 +0100
Re: C idioms Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-11 02:09 +0100
Re: C idioms Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-11 12:39 +0100
Re: C idioms Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-11 16:24 +0100
Re: C idioms scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-11 15:55 +0000
Re: C idioms Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-11 09:42 -0700
Re: C idioms Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-11 19:23 +0200
Re: C idioms jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu - 2018-10-11 11:11 -0700
Re: C idioms Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-11 12:05 -0700
Re: C idioms Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-11 17:53 +0100
Re: C idioms Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-11 10:38 -0700
Re: C idioms Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-12 00:14 +0100
Re: C idioms Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-11 19:26 +0100
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-09 16:38 +0200
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-09 15:23 +0000
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-09 20:31 +0200
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-09 20:18 +0100
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-09 22:11 +0200
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-09 20:50 +0000
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-09 22:58 +0200
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-09 22:34 +0100
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-10 08:10 +0200
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu - 2018-10-09 14:45 -0700
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-10 08:07 +0200
Hmmm... (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator)) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-10 07:56 +0000
Re: Hmmm... (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator)) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-10 10:32 +0200
Re: Hmmm... (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator)) Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2018-10-10 13:44 +0000
Re: Hmmm... (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator)) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-10 14:52 +0000
Re: Hmmm... (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator)) Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-10 17:47 +0200
Re: Hmmm... (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator)) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-10 17:18 +0200
Re: Hmmm... (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator)) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-10 15:22 +0000
Re: Hmmm... (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator)) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-10 23:58 +0200
Re: Hmmm... Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2018-10-10 07:51 -0600
Re: Hmmm... gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-10 14:53 +0000
Re: Hmmm... David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-10 17:21 +0200
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-10 12:57 +0000
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-10-10 12:29 -0400
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-11 00:07 +0200
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-09 14:50 -0700
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-10 08:13 +0200
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-10 12:56 +0000
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-10 15:55 +0200
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-10 15:17 +0100
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-10 14:49 +0000
Fall-through in switch statements... (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator)) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-10 14:59 +0000
Re: Fall-through in switch statements... (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator)) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-10 16:09 +0100
Re: Fall-through in switch statements... (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator)) nobody@example.org (Scott) - 2018-10-10 17:29 +0000
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-10 16:01 +0100
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-10 17:29 +0200
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-10 17:55 +0200
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-10 17:11 +0100
Re: C idioms Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-10 23:15 +0100
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-11 00:16 +0200
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-10 23:23 +0100
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-10 16:31 -0700
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-10 15:32 -0700
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-10 16:24 -0700
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-11 10:52 +0200
Re: C idioms Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2018-10-10 09:59 -0600
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-10 17:26 +0200
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-10 14:48 +0000
Return values of fork() (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator)) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-10 14:51 +0000
Re: Return values of fork() (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator)) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-10 15:20 +0000
You know that and I know that, but ... (Was: Return values of fork() (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator))) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-10 15:28 +0000
Re: You know that and I know that, but ... (Was: Return values of fork() (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator))) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-11 00:23 +0200
Re: You know that and I know that, but ... (Was: Return values of fork() (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator))) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-11 13:22 +0000
Re: You know that and I know that, but ... (Was: Return values of fork() (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator))) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-11 15:58 +0200
Re: You know that and I know that, but ... (Was: Return values of fork() (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator))) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-11 14:17 +0000
Re: You know that and I know that, but ... (Was: Return values of fork() (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator))) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-11 16:42 +0200
Re: You know that and I know that, but ... (Was: Return values of fork() (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator))) Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-11 16:53 +0200
Re: You know that and I know that, but ... (Was: Return values of fork() (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator))) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-11 20:11 +0200
Re: Return values of fork() (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator)) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-11 00:20 +0200
Re: Return values of fork() (Was: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator)) Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-10 16:15 -0700
Re: Return values of fork() Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2018-10-11 14:42 -0600
Re: C idioms Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2018-10-09 16:18 -0600
Re: C idioms gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-09 22:28 +0000
Re: C idioms scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-10 12:58 +0000
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-10-09 07:48 -0700
Re: C idioms Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-09 16:42 +0100
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-09 19:40 +0200
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-10-09 12:38 -0700
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-09 23:41 +0200
Re: C idioms (Was: >< swap operator) Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-09 19:38 +0200
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-07 15:04 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-07 16:37 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-07 16:58 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 12:17 -0400
Grammar police! (Was: >< swap operator) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-07 20:37 +0000
Re: >< swap operator jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu - 2018-10-07 09:31 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-07 18:09 +0100
Re: >< swap operator jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu - 2018-10-07 14:05 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-07 22:35 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-08 02:56 +0100
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-08 10:48 +0200
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-08 12:09 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2018-10-08 16:00 +0000
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-08 17:44 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-08 10:39 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-08 20:08 +0100
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-09 11:22 +0200
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-09 09:25 -0700
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-09 20:43 +0200
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-09 20:15 +0100
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-09 22:26 +0200
Re: >< swap operator Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2018-10-08 21:09 +0000
Re: >< swap operator David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2018-10-08 15:18 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-08 07:55 -0700
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-09 11:24 +0200
Re: >< swap operator jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu - 2018-10-08 07:19 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-08 16:26 +0100
Re: >< swap operator jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu - 2018-10-10 10:59 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-08 19:53 +0100
Re: >< swap operator James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-10-07 18:00 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-07 17:10 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-08 01:25 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-08 02:51 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-08 11:29 +0100
Re: >< swap operator mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2018-10-08 04:41 -0700
Re: >< swap operator jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu - 2018-10-08 07:56 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-08 08:36 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-08 17:34 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-08 21:35 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-08 22:00 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-09 00:47 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-09 01:11 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-09 02:47 +0100
Re: >< swap operator mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2018-10-09 00:49 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-09 11:28 +0100
Re: >< swap operator gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-09 13:00 +0000
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-08 10:28 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-08 10:49 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2018-10-07 20:00 -0600
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-06 13:07 -0700
Re: >< swap operator gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-05 23:35 +0000
Re: >< swap operator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 03:49 -0700
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-06 16:18 +0200
Re: >< swap operator scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-06 14:48 +0000
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-06 12:53 -0700
Re: >< swap operator scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-07 16:38 +0000
Re: >< swap operator James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2018-10-07 15:56 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-07 16:53 -0700
Re: >< swap operator David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 17:07 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-07 17:24 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-08 01:30 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2018-10-07 19:12 -0600
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-06 18:26 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-06 19:41 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-06 13:05 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 02:24 -0700
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-07 12:41 +0200
100% of the user base... (Was: >< swap operator) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-06 00:22 +0000
Re: 100% of the user base... (Was: >< swap operator) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-06 01:55 +0100
Re: 100% of the user base... (Was: >< swap operator) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 03:58 -0700
Re: 100% of the user base... (Was: >< swap operator) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-06 11:51 +0000
Re: 100% of the user base... (Was: >< swap operator) Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-06 13:09 +0100
Re: 100% of the user base... (Was: >< swap operator) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 05:26 -0700
Re: 100% of the user base... (Was: >< swap operator) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 05:40 -0700
Re: 100% of the user base... (Was: >< swap operator) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-06 12:46 +0000
Re: 100% of the user base... (Was: >< swap operator) Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-10-06 12:46 +0000
Re: 100% of the user base... (Was: >< swap operator) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-06 12:49 +0000
Re: 100% of the user base... (Was: >< swap operator) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 06:27 -0700
Re: 100% of the user base... (Was: >< swap operator) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-07 12:47 +0000
Re: 100% of the user base... (Was: >< swap operator) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 09:03 -0400
Re: 100% of the user base... (Was: >< swap operator) scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-07 16:47 +0000
Re: >< swap operator Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-05 10:17 +0200
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-05 09:20 +0200
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-05 10:58 +0100
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-05 12:09 +0200
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-05 03:11 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 07:56 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-05 14:25 +0200
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 08:39 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-05 15:47 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-05 17:30 +0200
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 11:41 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-05 17:56 +0200
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 12:00 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-10-05 12:34 -0400
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 12:48 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-10-05 13:55 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-05 11:20 -0700
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 14:45 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2018-10-05 21:39 -0400
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-07 08:51 -0400
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-11-25 14:18 -0800
Re: >< swap operator Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2018-10-05 15:46 +0300
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 06:05 -0700
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 06:16 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-05 15:09 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 10:18 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2018-10-05 17:32 +0300
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 10:34 -0400
Of course it is crazy! (Was: >< swap operator) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-05 15:17 +0000
Re: >< swap operator gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-05 18:30 +0000
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 14:48 -0400
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 15:06 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-05 13:55 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 06:14 -0700
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-05 16:18 +0200
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 10:21 -0400
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-05 17:27 +0200
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-05 15:26 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 10:28 -0400
Re: >< swap operator gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-05 14:46 +0000
When pigs fly... (Was: >< swap operator) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-05 16:10 +0000
Re: >< swap operator Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> - 2018-10-05 17:35 +0300
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 10:46 -0400
Re: >< swap operator gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-05 15:15 +0000
6K years??? (Was: >< swap operator) gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2018-10-05 13:20 +0000
Re: 6K years??? (Was: >< swap operator) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 09:28 -0400
Re: 6K years??? (Was: >< swap operator) Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> - 2018-10-05 17:53 +0200
Re: 6K years??? (Was: >< swap operator) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 11:56 -0400
Re: 6K years??? (Was: >< swap operator) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-05 18:17 +0200
Re: 6K years??? (Was: >< swap operator) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 09:21 -0700
Re: 6K years??? (Was: >< swap operator) David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-05 18:50 +0200
Re: 6K years??? (Was: >< swap operator) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 12:52 -0400
Re: 6K years??? (Was: >< swap operator) "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-05 13:05 -0400
Re: 6K years??? (Was: >< swap operator) Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-10-06 03:42 -0700
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-05 15:59 +0200
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-06 03:45 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-04 11:22 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-04 20:35 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-04 13:28 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-10-04 17:59 +0100
Re: >< swap operator John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2018-10-04 09:56 -0700
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 06:03 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-03 14:37 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 09:51 -0400
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-03 15:39 +0200
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 10:05 -0400
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 10:09 -0400
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-03 16:22 +0200
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 10:29 -0400
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-03 20:52 +0200
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 14:57 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-02 16:06 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-03 00:09 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2018-10-02 19:21 -0400
Re: >< swap operator David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2018-10-03 11:21 +0200
Re: >< swap operator Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:43 -0700
Re: >< swap operator scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-02 21:01 +0000
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-02 14:29 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-02 22:37 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-10-03 05:07 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-02 21:01 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 16:06 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-02 21:45 +0100
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 17:09 -0400
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 16:11 -0400
Re: >< swap operator "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 16:22 -0400
Re: >< swap operator Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:17 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 13:24 -0700
Re: >< swap operator scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2018-10-02 15:04 +0000
Re: >< swap operator Niles Rogoff <eternal-september@niles.xyz> - 2018-10-03 18:28 +0000
Re: >< swap operator Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2018-08-14 11:50 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-14 17:07 -0700
Re: >< swap operator fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 02:22 -0700
Re: >< swap operator fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 02:34 -0700
Re: >< swap operator fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 03:09 -0700
Re: >< swap operator fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 03:24 -0700
Re: >< swap operator fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 04:51 -0700
Re: >< swap operator fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 05:06 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Siri Cruise <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2018-08-15 04:21 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2018-08-15 14:43 +0100
Re: >< swap operator fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2018-08-15 07:08 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-08-15 16:52 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2018-08-15 15:51 +0000
Re: >< swap operator John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2018-10-01 14:59 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 03:06 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-02 11:43 +0100
Re: >< swap operator John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 07:27 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2018-10-02 15:43 +0100
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-02 11:01 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2018-10-02 10:54 -0700
Re: >< swap operator Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2018-10-02 12:39 -0700
Re: >< swap operator skybuck2000@hotmail.com - 2018-10-10 18:10 -0700
Re: >< swap operator skybuck2000@hotmail.com - 2018-10-10 18:24 -0700
Page 15 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 Next page →
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 14:46 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp7tgp$3c5$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #136269 |
In article <pp7sds$d17$3@dont-email.me>, Rick C. Hodgin <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> wrote: >On 10/5/2018 10:26 AM, Bart wrote: >> On 05/10/2018 14:14, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: >>> On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 8:55:30 AM UTC-4, Bart wrote: >>>> You seem intent on making up absurd semantics and applying them to any >>>> constructions which are usually considered errors. >>> >>> I recognize your viewpoint on my work, efforts, and goals, Bart. >>> I do not care to discuss any of it with you. A cloud of negativity >>> surrounds nearly everything you write to me, >> >> I'm sorry, but I think most of your ideas are poor. Come up with something >> worth stealing for my own language, and I will be positive about it. > >I offer these things publicly. You wouldn't be stealing. You >would be using what I have offered with my blessing in so doing. > >I'm done speaking with you for a while, Bart. One can only hope. -- I've been watching cat videos on YouTube. More content and closer to the truth than anything on Fox.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 16:10 +0000 |
| Subject | When pigs fly... (Was: >< swap operator) |
| Message-ID | <pp82cs$5pp$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #136268 |
In article <IwKtD.2$el1.0@fx34.am4>, Bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: ... >Have you ever designed and implemented a new language? Was it ever used >in a work environment on real tasks? You might as well be asking him if he's ever ridden on the back of a pig flying over the moon. -- It's possible that leasing office space to a Starbucks is a greater liability in today's GOP than is hitting your mother on the head with a hammer.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 17:35 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <20181005173557.2425ce16b90807615a58fdde@g{oogle}mail.com> |
| In reply to | #136258 |
Rick C. Hodgin: >int a, b, c; > > a = 2; > b = 3; > a + b = c; > > "Class, what would c be?" > >They'd all answer "5." "Okay, class, try it out in CAlive. > > "It works." > "I see it too." > "So cool." > "What's next, teacher?" > >Now imagine the same thing in a class with C: > > int a, b, c; > > a = 2; > b = 3; > c = a + b; > > "Teacher, why is it backwards?" Because equality and assignment are totally different things. One is showing the truth of a statement, and the other is putting a value into a variable. -- () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ http://preview.tinyurl.com/qcy6mjc [archived]
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 10:46 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pp7tgq$n4j$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136273 |
On 10/5/2018 10:35 AM, Anton Shepelev wrote: > Rick C. Hodgin: >> "Teacher, why is it backwards?" > > Because equality and assignment are totally different > things. One is showing the truth of a statement, and the > other is putting a value into a variable. :-) -- Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 15:15 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pp7v7d$49e$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #136273 |
In article <20181005173557.2425ce16b90807615a58fdde@g{oogle}mail.com>,
Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@g{oogle}mail.com> wrote:
...
>Because equality and assignment are totally different
>things. One is showing the truth of a statement, and the
>other is putting a value into a variable.
Yup. This is an area where C did get it wrong. But it is not a big deal
and it is hardly worth all the verbiage in this thread.
In fact, just about every early language (FORTRAN, Basic, etc) did get this
wrong - using = for assignment. I think the languages that use := do have
an advantage.
--
They say compassion is a virtue, but I don't have the time!
- David Byrne -
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 13:20 +0000 |
| Subject | 6K years??? (Was: >< swap operator) |
| Message-ID | <pp7ofd$9t$1@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #136256 |
In article <ZaJtD.2$xE.0@fx22.am4>, Bart <bc@freeuk.com> wrote: ... >You seem intent on making up absurd semantics and applying them to any >constructions which are usually considered errors. You're dealing with someone who is certain that the Earth (and the universe as a whole) are only 6000 years old. I don't think you need bothering to take anything it says at all seriously. I'm sorry Ricky, but that's just a total disqualifier in terms of ever being taken seriously - on any topic. -- The randomly chosen signature file that would have appeared here is more than 4 lines long. As such, it violates one or more Usenet RFCs. In order to remain in compliance with said RFCs, the actual sig can be found at the following URL: http://user.xmission.com/~gazelle/Sigs/GodDelusion
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 09:28 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: 6K years??? (Was: >< swap operator) |
| Message-ID | <pp7oup$ph0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136260 |
On 10/5/2018 9:20 AM, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> You're dealing with someone who is certain that the Earth (and the universe
> as a whole) are only 6000 years old.
There is corroborating evidence globally.
Age of the Earth
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szBTl3S24MY
Dare to learn something, Kenny? Or are you content to wallow
in self-belief / self-assertion that what you learned from
sinful man is the way it is? Were you there? How do you know?
What does the evidence actually reveal?
-- Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Wouter Verhelst <w@uter.be> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 17:53 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: 6K years??? (Was: >< swap operator) |
| Message-ID | <71ek8f-rs2.ln1@gangtai.home.grep.be> |
| In reply to | #136261 |
On 10/5/18 3:28 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > On 10/5/2018 9:20 AM, Kenny McCormack wrote: >> You're dealing with someone who is certain that the Earth (and the > universe >> as a whole) are only 6000 years old. > > There is corroborating evidence globally. No there isn't. [...] > Dare to learn something, Kenny? Or are you content to wallow > in self-belief / self-assertion that what you learned from > sinful man is the way it is? Were you there? How do you know? Scientific knowledge is derived from direct observation of the world around you. If you go look for them, you can read the scientific papers that describe that evidence, and you can reproduce the relevant observations. If you don't go to university to be taught the way things work, it will take you a while to understand it all, but it *is* possible. This is the basis of scientific discovery. When people start lying about the science they did, this is how they are uncovered: their "discoveries" cannot be reproduced. > What does the evidence actually reveal? Your "evidence" is derived from a book, and therefore is no more than hearsay. Of course, if you prefer hearsay, that's your business. But don't forget that it's usually wrong. I'm not saying the book is wrong in all things. It's certainly possible that there's a bearded man in the clouds deciding everything with handwavy incantation. However, that does *not* mean that scientific observation is wrong, even (or especially) when the direct scientific observation contradicts what some random book writes. I'm not saying you're an idiot for believing what your book says. But you *are* an idiot for believing that the book is right in all things, even in the things which the proof of your *own* eyes can tell you is wrong, if you just care to go look for it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 11:56 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: 6K years??? (Was: >< swap operator) |
| Message-ID | <pp81j8$irf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136282 |
On 10/5/2018 11:53 AM, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On 10/5/18 3:28 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: >> On 10/5/2018 9:20 AM, Kenny McCormack wrote: >>> You're dealing with someone who is certain that the Earth (and the >> universe >>> as a whole) are only 6000 years old. >> >> There is corroborating evidence globally. > > No there isn't. > > [...] >> Dare to learn something, Kenny? Or are you content to wallow >> in self-belief / self-assertion that what you learned from >> sinful man is the way it is? Were you there? How do you know? > > Scientific knowledge is derived from direct observation of the world > around you. That is /EXACTLY/ what is conveyed in that video. >> What does the evidence actually reveal? > Your "evidence" is derived from a book... I begin with the assertion that God is true and that He doesn't lie, and then I look at the evidence, but the evidence comes from what you say: "direct observation of the world around you." This initial foundation gives a much different perspective on the things we see around us, but all of these things come from direct evidence of what we see, coupled to reason, coupled to the foundation of God creating everything. Watch the video (if you understand spoken English). -- Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 18:17 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: 6K years??? (Was: >< swap operator) |
| Message-ID | <pp82ro$svq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136284 |
On 05/10/18 17:56, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > I begin with the assertion that God is true and that He doesn't > lie, and then I look at the evidence, but the evidence comes from > what you say: "direct observation of the world around you." > That is your trouble. You can't reach a scientific conclusion by starting from an assertion. You need to look at the evidence, and /then/ see what conclusions it supports. If you want to start with the asserting that God is true and the Bible is true, that's up to you - you pick whatever beliefs and religion you want. But it is /not/ scientific, and it is /not/ evidence-based. To get that, you have to start with /no/ assumptions. When science says the earth is 4.5 billion years old, it does /not/ start by saying "The earth is 4.5 billion years old. This rock has been around since the beginning of the earth. Since we know that was 4.5 billion years ago, the rock must be 4.5 billion years old. Look! We've found a 4.5 billion year old rock! That's evidence that the world is 4.5 billion years old!". Science says "Let's look at some rocks, and see if we can figure out ways to measure their age. That will give us an estimate of a minimum age for the earth". Sciences starts by assuming as little as possible - and working up from the observations made. It does not assume that the earth is old, or young, or that there is a god, or that there is no god. And it concludes that the evidence observed is most consistent with an age of around 4.5 billion years - and concludes absolutely nothing regarding the existence or non-existence of god. So, as I say, I have nothing against you believing in God, or even in believing the Bible is all literally true and that the earth is 6000 years old. (I think it is a daft way to live your life, but it is your life and your choice - my opinions don't count.) You can even believe that fossils are bones of animals drowned in a flood. But you don't get to call it "science", or "evidence". You don't get to call the money-grabbing and attention-grabbing conmen who publish this stuff "scientists". You don't get to call it logical or rational. You don't get to say "science is changing its mind" or "science is proving the Bible". You get to say it is your belief, your faith, your religion. Not science.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 09:21 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: 6K years??? (Was: >< swap operator) |
| Message-ID | <e894b97f-4e2b-4cca-b92e-3fb31124efba@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #136287 |
On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 12:18:12 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote: > On 05/10/18 17:56, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > > I begin with the assertion that God is true and that He doesn't > > lie, and then I look at the evidence, but the evidence comes from > > what you say: "direct observation of the world around you." > > > > That is your trouble. You can't reach a scientific conclusion by > starting from an assertion. You need to look at the evidence, and > /then/ see what conclusions it supports. You start with an assertion, David, that God doesn't exist, because if you looked objectively at this universe you could not conclude anything other than it was created by a designer, and in this context that designer would be God. -- Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 18:50 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: 6K years??? (Was: >< swap operator) |
| Message-ID | <pp84ns$9tq$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136288 |
On 05/10/18 18:21, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 12:18:12 PM UTC-4, David Brown wrote: >> On 05/10/18 17:56, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: >>> I begin with the assertion that God is true and that He doesn't >>> lie, and then I look at the evidence, but the evidence comes from >>> what you say: "direct observation of the world around you." >>> >> >> That is your trouble. You can't reach a scientific conclusion by >> starting from an assertion. You need to look at the evidence, and >> /then/ see what conclusions it supports. > > You start with an assertion, David, that God doesn't exist, > because if you looked objectively at this universe you could > not conclude anything other than it was created by a designer, > and in this context that designer would be God. > As I have said, science starts /without/ any assertions or assumptions, and makes no comment on the existence or otherwise of any god. If an objective look at the evidence and observations made it clear that there had to be a "designer", then science would conclude that there was a a designer or god of some sort. It does not do so, because there is no evidence requiring a designer for explanation. But it has been wisely pointed out to me that these discussions go nowhere, so I will leave it here, even if you reply - unless you suddenly understand what "science" means. As always, if I have something useful to say I will continue to reply to topical posts - or at least, /almost/ topical posts. But I don't think the discussion about your ">< swap" will see any progress until you post clear /useful/ examples showing where this "assign values to expressions" idea would actually improve code.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 12:52 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: 6K years??? (Was: >< swap operator) |
| Message-ID | <pp84tb$9ar$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136292 |
On 10/5/2018 12:50 PM, David Brown wrote: > As I have said, science starts /without/ any assertions or assumptions, /IT DOESN'T/, David. We are taught from Kindergarten, "Millions of years ago, Dinosaurs roamed the Earth." You don't believe me, go pick up a pre-school through primary school textbook and read what it says. You have been indoctrinated into the lie your entire life. It is the enemy of this world seeking to see your soul destroyed in Hell, sir. You are being deceived by a most ruthless enemy who truly hates you, and wants you obliterated out of eternity. The universe screams of creation. Even the word "universe" stems from two parts "uni" and "verse" meaning "one ... statement." -- Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 13:05 -0400 |
| Subject | Re: 6K years??? (Was: >< swap operator) |
| Message-ID | <pp85lf$gbu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136294 |
On 10/5/2018 12:52 PM, Rick C. Hodgin wrote:
> The universe screams of creation. Even the word "universe" stems
> from two parts "uni" and "verse" meaning "one ... statement."
We see the true effects of sin at work here. God has created all
that there is, making everything perfect. Sin enters in and this
world becomes what we see it is today, where reason is perverted
by an enemy who preys upon our flesh (which is corrupt in sin), to
try and convince us of lies, to try and remove God from our think-
ing, to try and replace what God has created in truth with some
alternate explanation.
The truth is: You were created by God for a purpose. You were
created for glory. You have a future God plans for you ahead of
you. You are valuable and desirable, so much so God stepped out
of Heaven to make a way back for you despite your guilt in sin.
You are most desirable in God's eyes, which is why He's made the
/FULL FORGIVENESS OF SIN AVAILABLE FOR FREE/. No special hoops
to jump through. You don't have to climb a great mountain, or
traverse a great desert to prove your worth. You simply come to
Him humbly, hat in hand, bowing down, in repentance, and acknowl-
edge that you are a sinner and ask forgiveness... and it is done.
But it is as Paul wrote:
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1%3A20-23&version=KJV
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the
world are clearly seen, being understood by the things
that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead;
==> so that they are without excuse:
21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not
as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their
==> imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
==> 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an
image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and
fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
God is everywhere. You can look at your hand and find Him, if
you just think about what it is you're doing there, being able
to even look at your hand.
Sin completely destroys. I am so thankful God created Hell to
confine it for all eternity. It is absolutely useless to the
fullest measure.
--
Rick C. Hodgin
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 03:42 -0700 |
| Subject | Re: 6K years??? (Was: >< swap operator) |
| Message-ID | <7295d3c2-28ea-4403-926d-921b9c231182@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #136292 |
On Friday, October 5, 2018 at 5:50:15 PM UTC+1, David Brown wrote: > > As I have said, science starts /without/ any assertions or assumptions, > and makes no comment on the existence or otherwise of any god. If an > objective look at the evidence and observations made it clear that there > had to be a "designer", then science would conclude that there was a a > designer or god of some sort. It does not do so, because there is no > evidence requiring a designer for explanation. > When we measure the age of rocks, we assume that the laws of physics are constant over long periods of time. We don't really know why that should be. You have to start with some assumptions.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-05 15:59 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <pp7qoo$5h4$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #136251 |
On 05/10/18 13:56, Rick C. Hodgin wrote: > On 10/04/2018 10:11 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: >>> I think the same can be said with something like >>> ++x. It is a unary value that's computed, then stored. >> >> You could look up how the standard describes that form. It forbids >> ++(2 + 3) because (2 + 3) is not an lvalue. > > Well, ++(2+3) is a perfectly valid statement. It's even re- > solved at compile-time. It's one of the artificial constraints > C places on things, and something I'm beginning to realize I > have issue with. > >>>>> Oh I really do. >>>> >>>> Then what was that long detailed post showing that a >< b >< c did not >>>> do as I said? >>> >>> When I posted that I thought you were under the mistaken impression >>> that it was an lvalue. >> >> That was and still is my position -- that a >< b should be an lvalue so >> that a >< b >< c is a rotate. Can you see how that would work even if >> you disagree with whatever it is you disagree with? > > I disagree with the lvalue constraint. It limits the utility of > the fundamental abilities which exist by imposing rules upon what > is otherwise perfectly valid behavior. > >>> When either b or a are the return result of a function, or >>> the result of something computed. >> >> How so? I'd like an example. I can't see why one or other of a or b >> being something computed makes it worth while having two swap >> operators. We don't have two subtraction operators. If I want "the >> other one" I just write b - a rather than a - b. Why can't I do that >> with a swap if I want the "other" return? >> >> By the way, in C, a function call is not an lvalue so you can't write >> >> f() = 42; > > Why not, Ben? f() = 42 is a perfectly valid statement in logic: > > ; f() = 42 > call f > mov eax,42 > > It replaces the return result of f() with the value 42. Or, if > f() didn't have a return result because it was declared void f(void), > it assigns one in this instance, effectively creating a new function > that can be used with the integer return result. > I believe the confusion here is because you don't understand what an "lvalue" actually /is/ in C terms. In the standards it is defined as "an expression that potentially designates an object" - and in C, an "object" is any item of data. So if you can assign 42 to the return result of f(), then the return result of f() is an lvalue. It would not be an lvalue in C, but it apparently is an lvalue in CAlive. The derivation of the name "lvalue" is basically "something that can appear on the left of an assignment", and "rvalue" is "something that can appear on the right of an assignment". (Things can be both an lvalue and an rvalue.) That does not quite fit, and in particular C has "modifiable lvalues" that don't include "const" objects or arrays. And the C standards talk about "the value of an expression" rather than "rvalue". What I think you are getting at here is that any expression - any /rvalue/ - can be implicitly converted to a temporary object to make it an lvalue. That is to say, if you have an expression such as "f()", then it can be considered as though you had a variable "temp" with the appropriate type, initialised to the value of the expression. You can then assign to this "temp", take its address, etc. (C++ has something related, rvalue references, to let you take the address of temporary objects and expressions - this lets you pass them by reference rather than just by value. You can't change anything this way, but it helps efficient coding in a language where you can work more directly with larger objects.) If I am right, then I understand what you are trying to do. What I don't understand is /why/. It seems like a limitless source of confusion and errors (compiler warnings will, as you say, help with that). I can't see where it would be useful. Hopefully you can show some specific examples that demonstrate it. >> I'd expect the same to apply to a swap since it is, in effect, two >> assignments. I would expect both 2 >< 3 and f() >< g() to be constraint >> violations. > > While both of those are effectively meaningless, they are valid > operations. They just don't convey any useful work. OK, so I haven't missed anything there. > A compiler > would be justified in issuing a warning in those statements, but > I do not think a compiler should prevent them, because who knows > what the human developer is doing there. Presumably you have clear cases in mind. > Maybe he/she needed to > add some pad space in their app for some code that will be in- > stalled in a later phase of the compilation, or at runtime? First, I would hope you are not seriously suggesting a way to allow self-modifying code at run-time. That would be insanity. Secondly, /if/ you are suggesting leaving space or hooks for self-modifying code, then there are many, many better ways to express it than this. > Why > impose those constraints upon people without resolution? Why not > setup a system which allows human developers to flourish, and > then also, if you want to, add some --safety switch, which lets > you then impose some rules to prevent newbies from shooting off > their leg too easily? It is fine that you want to remove constraints and add flexibility. But there has to be a point to it. You have to be able to say where the idea is useful, and why it would be difficult to get the same effect without that feature. Otherwise it's like adding a feature to make some lines of code pink - it adds nothing to the users code, but makes implementation more difficult and would confuse people as to its purpose. > > This whole concept of the swap operator and what it truly means > is opening my eyes to bypass some of C/C++'s limitations in this > way. And the thing about it is, as I've tried to explain to Bart, > is that it doesn't cost any more to allow these things, and if > they are not used then it won't ever be an issue for anybody. > But in those cases where they are used, there they are, another > tool in the toolbox. > The more tools you have in your toolbox, the harder it is to find the tool you actually want. More choice is /not/ better, unless you have clear benefits of those choices. Do you think it would be easier to drive cars if users could select the order of the pedals to suit their preferences? Would it be easier to fix your car if your toolbox contained 16 different hammers, some with normal straight handles and some with curved ones or a hinge in the middle because you don't want to be constrained by convention? I am not saying it is bad to have new tools or new ideas. I am saying it is bad to have them if they are not useful. And so far, you have failed to show how this idea could be useful. All we have now is vague waffle about "removing limits". Give some clear, specific examples and use-cases, and you could change our minds.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-06 03:45 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87in2fkd2u.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #136251 |
"Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: > On 10/04/2018 10:11 PM, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> "Rick C. Hodgin" <rick.c.hodgin@gmail.com> writes: >>> I think the same can be said with something like >>> ++x. It is a unary value that's computed, then stored. >> >> You could look up how the standard describes that form. It forbids >> ++(2 + 3) because (2 + 3) is not an lvalue. > > Well, ++(2+3) is a perfectly valid statement. It's even re- > solved at compile-time. It's one of the artificial constraints > C places on things, and something I'm beginning to realize I > have issue with. You can give it a meaning. That will make it valid, but perfect validity would require it to be sensible. Anyway, this thread has drifted far away a putative swap operation in C. Whole swathes of C are now under the bus. >>>>> Oh I really do. >>>> >>>> Then what was that long detailed post showing that a >< b >< c did not >>>> do as I said? >>> >>> When I posted that I thought you were under the mistaken impression >>> that it was an lvalue. >> >> That was and still is my position -- that a >< b should be an lvalue so >> that a >< b >< c is a rotate. Can you see how that would work even if >> you disagree with whatever it is you disagree with? > > I disagree with the lvalue constraint. It limits the utility of > the fundamental abilities which exist by imposing rules upon what > is otherwise perfectly valid behavior. And I see you are not willing to answer questions. That's a substantial obstacle in a technical exchange like this. <snip> >> By the way, in C, a function call is not an lvalue so you can't write >> >> f() = 42; > > Why not, Ben? I said "in C ... you can't write ...". You are not really asking why you can't write that in C are you? Of course you can write it in some other language. If you ever arrive at a specification for this other language, I'll be more than happy to look it over. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 11:22 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <lnzhvt372e.fsf@kst-u.example.com> |
| In reply to | #136204 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
[...]
> I'm sorry, but this makes it clear that you don't know what I'm taking
> about. Can you give a short summary of what you think I mean by an
> expression being a lvalue expression? Even if you just gave a few
> example of lvalue expressions in C, I'd have some idea where the
> confusion lies.
[...]
A very small quibble: "lvalue expression" is redundant. An lvalue
(as C defines the term) is a kind of expression.
--
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 | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 20:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <87woqxo67l.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #136215 |
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes: > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: > [...] >> I'm sorry, but this makes it clear that you don't know what I'm taking >> about. Can you give a short summary of what you think I mean by an >> expression being a lvalue expression? Even if you just gave a few >> example of lvalue expressions in C, I'd have some idea where the >> confusion lies. > [...] > > A very small quibble: "lvalue expression" is redundant. An lvalue > (as C defines the term) is a kind of expression. Yes, I have been deliberately using this redundant phrase to emphasise that it's C's meaning I am referring to. In other contexts lvalues are rather different an I don't want the discussion to wonder off into those weeds. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bart <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-04 13:28 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <FHntD.409040$0L2.69550@fx04.am4> |
| In reply to | #136176 |
On 04/10/2018 11:53, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
> (By the way, if I were going to provide both operators I'd make them
> mirrors of each other, for example =>< and ><=. However, I don't think
> there is much value in having both.)
>
> Here it is in C++ using << and >> for the two versions of swap. You can
> do it with a swap function in C, but (a) I wanted to illustrate it with
> operators, (b) in C you have to use pointers so there is no direct
> analogue of the lvalue.
>snip<
> a << b << c;
> std::cout << a << " " << b << " " << c << "\n";
> a << b << c;
> std::cout << a << " " << b << " " << c << "\n";
> a << b << c;
> std::cout << a << " " << b << " " << c << "\n";
Hmm, those "<<" seem to clash don't they?
(BTW these appear to be just the same two lines repeated three times in
all.)
> Since this is comp.lang.c, here it is in C. But with no operators and
> using explicit pointers to "fake" the lvalue, it's all much less clear.
>
>
> int *swapl(int *a, int *b) { int t = *a; *a = *b; *b = t; return a; }
> int *swapr(int *a, int *b) { int t = *a; *a = *b; *b = t; return b; }
>
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> int main(void)
> {
> int a = 1, b = 2, c = 3;
> printf("%d %d %d\n", a, b, c);
>
> swapl(swapl(&a, &b), &c);
> printf("%d %d %d\n", a, b, c);
> swapl(swapl(&a, &b), &c);
> printf("%d %d %d\n", a, b, c);
> swapl(swapl(&a, &b), &c);
> printf("%d %d %d\n", a, b, c);
>
> swapr(swapr(&a, &b), &c);
> printf("%d %d %d\n", a, b, c);
> swapr(swapr(&a, &b), &c);
> printf("%d %d %d\n", a, b, c);
> swapr(swapr(&a, &b), &c);
> printf("%d %d %d\n", a, b, c);
> }
Well the C appears shorter and clearer in this case.
The problem I have with swap returning any sort of value is that, as has
been said, it is already used infrequently enough. And that's without
requiring any return values, which has the complication of whether it's
the left or right, or whether it's an lvalue or rvalue, or whether it's
something else.
Keep the feature simple with just the one job to do.
And your example is really just doing a rotation, but with series of
swaps that ripple their way through (and I think with double the number
of loads and stores that are needed, before it gets optimised).
Rotation is more easily done with multiple assignment. Example with
scripted code that gives the same results:
a, b, c := 1, 2, 3
println a, b, c
to 3 do
a, b, c := c, a, b
println a, b, c
od
to 3 do
a, b, c := b, c, a
println a, b, c
od
Disadvantage here is having to specify terms twice on the same line.
That's why I prefer a dedicated swap (eg. swap(a[i],a[i+1])) rather than
relying on multiple assignments (also because I had it first).
A dedicated rotate would be interesting, but probably far too uncommon
(when applied to unrelated terms rather than a list) to be worth doing.
--
bart
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 15 of 18 — ← Prev page 1 … 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web