Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #102431 > unrolled thread
| Started by | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-01-25 14:30 +0000 |
| Last post | 2017-02-04 10:13 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 206 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-25 14:30 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-01-27 15:18 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-01 11:40 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-01 21:35 +0100
Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-01 21:02 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-02 00:35 -0600
Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-02 09:00 +0100
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-02 16:41 -0600
Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-03 00:11 +0100
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-03 00:56 -0600
Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-01 20:49 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-02 00:43 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-01 17:36 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-01 17:50 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-01 18:09 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-02 10:30 +0100
Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-02 12:13 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-02 13:53 +0100
Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-02 13:14 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-02 14:42 +0100
Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-02 15:25 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-02 10:19 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-02-02 22:59 +0100
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-03 06:02 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-03 14:29 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-04 10:00 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-03 08:54 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-04 10:03 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-02 10:15 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-02 19:29 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-03 08:32 +1300
Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-02 20:44 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-02 13:06 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-02 21:51 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-02 14:16 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-02 15:17 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-03 00:16 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-03 01:09 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-03 01:04 -0600
Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-03 11:34 +0100
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-03 14:54 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-03 15:31 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-03 19:32 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-03 20:28 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-03 12:44 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-03 21:33 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-03 16:19 -0600
Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-03 22:46 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-03 17:47 -0600
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-04 13:26 +1300
Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-04 01:08 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-04 18:09 +1300
Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-04 12:14 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-04 17:01 +0100
Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-04 18:20 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-05 20:40 +1300
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-05 00:08 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-05 21:10 +1300
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-05 00:21 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-05 11:51 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-05 04:34 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-06 09:26 +1300
Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-05 21:02 +0100
Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-05 22:39 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-06 00:21 +0100
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:10 +1300
Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-06 01:55 +0100
Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-06 00:57 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-06 14:08 +1300
Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-06 09:32 +0100
Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-06 12:22 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-06 04:40 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-06 14:04 +0100
Re: Preprocessor Overheads supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-06 06:08 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-06 15:42 +0100
Re: Preprocessor Overheads supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-06 08:10 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-07 09:57 +0100
Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-07 11:26 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-02-06 10:36 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-07 07:27 +1300
Re: Preprocessor Overheads antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-02-04 20:35 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-05 21:16 +0100
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-04 00:51 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-04 01:20 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-04 01:48 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-04 02:10 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-02-04 02:56 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-05 01:56 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-04 11:14 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-04 12:00 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-04 12:16 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-04 13:41 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-04 14:00 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-04 07:55 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2017-02-04 18:15 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-05 21:41 +0100
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-04 16:36 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads bart4858@gmail.com - 2017-02-04 11:24 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-04 21:08 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-04 13:41 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-04 14:26 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-04 23:27 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-05 00:18 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-04 19:56 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-05 11:01 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-05 04:04 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-05 14:03 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-05 06:56 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-05 09:01 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-05 20:53 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-05 13:34 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-06 11:15 +1300
Re: Preprocessor Overheads fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 14:30 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-02-05 14:39 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-05 14:58 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-05 15:23 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-05 15:40 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-05 15:05 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-06 13:22 +1300
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-09 07:48 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Thiago Adams <thiago.adams@gmail.com> - 2017-02-09 09:15 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-10 08:05 +1300
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-06 00:08 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-08 21:20 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-05 04:08 -0600
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-05 02:40 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-09 09:27 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-09 18:04 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-05 18:07 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-05 21:55 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-05 23:07 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-03 01:02 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-03 22:07 +1300
Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-03 11:25 +0100
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-03 04:26 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-03 12:36 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-03 04:59 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-03 13:09 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-03 05:24 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-03 13:41 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-03 08:29 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-03 17:00 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-03 09:24 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-03 18:31 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-02-06 10:55 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-06 03:02 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 19:55 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-03 20:11 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-03 17:30 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-03 18:00 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-03 21:27 +0100
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-03 21:35 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-02-06 10:53 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-06 14:06 +0100
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-06 05:22 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-06 14:49 +0100
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-06 05:59 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-06 14:12 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-06 06:13 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-06 15:22 +0100
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-06 15:27 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-02-06 15:10 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-02-06 14:55 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-06 16:57 +0100
Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-03 21:17 +0100
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-03 20:20 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-03 21:29 +0100
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-03 21:03 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-03 22:33 +0100
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-04 13:29 +1300
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-04 04:19 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-02-03 15:18 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-02-03 21:17 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-03 13:39 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads antispam@math.uni.wroc.pl - 2017-02-03 23:38 +0000
Re: printing int64_t objects Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2017-02-02 23:40 +0100
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-03 20:20 +1300
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-02-03 19:52 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2017-02-04 14:03 +1300
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-02 14:13 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-02 12:08 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-02-02 21:45 +0100
Re: Preprocessor Overheads supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-02 15:35 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-02 15:56 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-02 16:23 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-03 12:23 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-03 20:51 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-03 14:16 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-03 22:47 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-03 16:38 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-02-04 00:47 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-03 18:34 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-04 11:02 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-04 13:18 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2017-02-04 21:27 +0000
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-04 10:04 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-02 12:46 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-02 14:12 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-02 15:21 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-02-02 16:02 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-02-02 16:13 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-02 14:16 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-03 05:03 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-02-03 16:41 -0600
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-02-03 16:15 -0800
Re: Preprocessor Overheads Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-02-04 10:13 -0800
Page 8 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 Next page →
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 08:29 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <1cae0607-8ced-4bce-a5b5-9037fd53913c@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #103029 |
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 1:41:14 PM UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 03/02/17 13:24, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > > Nesting that is simple to follow without examination (to illustrate the difference, > > most people can recognise about seven objects without counting them, > > I can recognise all the objects on my desk without counting them. There > are dozens, at least. > The task is to say how many objects there are on the desk, without counting. If you've got, say, two bananas on your desk and nothing else, it should be easy. > > > though you can count up to twenty of thirty randomly scattered unlabellable > > objects, and several hundred labellable ones). > > No, I can count all of them. That's what counting is /for/. > You haven't done field ecology. If you do a biological science, you soon find that counting things, like the number of limpets on a rock, is really quite difficult and it's hard to be accurate. (We were tasked with counting flies on carnivorous Drosera. We failed utterly, but we did at least measure the error between my count and my partner's. So we got the top mark. That field course took a week). > > > There's also the rule of two. Identifiers need to be binary at most (Richard Heathfield, > > not Richard Archibald Baldwick Charles David Edmund Frederick Gideon Heathfield) > > Oh dear. I'd better change my name by deed poll, then, because I am > burdened with two middle names that contravene your rule. > You obey the rule of two. Your middle names are quietly forgotten, except in very formal contexts, and when you use the rule of two as initials plus surname.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 17:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o72ct2$ehf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #103041 |
On 03/02/17 16:29, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 1:41:14 PM UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 03/02/17 13:24, Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>
>>> Nesting that is simple to follow without examination (to illustrate the difference,
>>> most people can recognise about seven objects without counting them,
>>
>> I can recognise all the objects on my desk without counting them. There
>> are dozens, at least.
>>
> The task is to say how many objects there are on the desk, without counting.
That isn't what you said before. You said most people can recognise
about seven objects without counting them. If the question is merely one
of identifying number, then let's see how many people can identify the
number of asterisks listed here, without counting them:
* * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * *
* * * * * * * * * *
Did anyone struggle with that? I certainly didn't.
> If you've got, say, two bananas on your desk and nothing else, it should be
> easy.
>>
>>> though you can count up to twenty of thirty randomly scattered unlabellable
>>> objects, and several hundred labellable ones).
>>
>> No, I can count all of them. That's what counting is /for/.
>>
> You haven't done field ecology.
That's actually true.
> If you do a biological science, you soon find that
> counting things, like the number of limpets on a rock, is really quite difficult
> and it's hard to be accurate.
There is a vast difference between counting limpets on a rock and
writing C programs. Surely you can see this? Anyway, it's not that hard
to get a decent estimate: grid the rock, count the limpets in a few
representative-looking cells, calculate a mean, and multiply up. But if
you need absolute precision, move them to another rock, and tally as you
go. (If you are required to leave the rock with the same number of
limpets as before, move them to a container instead, and then put them
back when you're done.) And this has nothing whatsoever to do with
programmers' ability to comprehend multiple nesting levels.
> (We were tasked with counting flies on carnivorous Drosera. We failed utterly,
> but we did at least measure the error between my count and my partner's.
> So we got the top mark. That field course took a week).
What has that to do with programming?
>>
>>> There's also the rule of two. Identifiers need to be binary at most (Richard Heathfield,
>>> not Richard Archibald Baldwick Charles David Edmund Frederick Gideon Heathfield)
>>
>> Oh dear. I'd better change my name by deed poll, then, because I am
>> burdened with two middle names that contravene your rule.
>>
> You obey the rule of two.
Check my email address.
> Your middle names are quietly forgotten, except in very
> formal contexts, and when you use the rule of two as initials plus surname.
So your rule of two allows us to aggregate items into twos. It's just as
well, isn't it, or our binary search trees would be very small:
Add M
Okay: M
Add A
Okay: M
/
A
Add L:
Error. Redo from start.
--
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 | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 09:24 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <b918e908-8c52-4b70-9d07-ae4b18d6e5ae@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #103048 |
On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 5:01:06 PM UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote: > On 03/02/17 16:29, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 1:41:14 PM UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote: > >> On 03/02/17 13:24, Malcolm McLean wrote: > >> > >>> Nesting that is simple to follow without examination (to illustrate the difference, > >>> most people can recognise about seven objects without counting them, > >> > >> I can recognise all the objects on my desk without counting them. There > >> are dozens, at least. > >> > > The task is to say how many objects there are on the desk, without counting. > > That isn't what you said before. You said most people can recognise > about seven objects without counting them. If the question is merely one > of identifying number, then let's see how many people can identify the > number of asterisks listed here, without counting them: > Randomly scattered. > * * * * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * > > * * * * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * > > * * * * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * > > * * * * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * > > * * * * * * * * * * > * * * * * * * * * * > > Did anyone struggle with that? I certainly didn't. > That's the same as Ben's highly contrived nesting counterexample. I did in fact have to count the rows and columns of the groups of 4, because my font is very non-square. > > > If you've got, say, two bananas on your desk and nothing else, it should be > > easy. > >> > >>> though you can count up to twenty of thirty randomly scattered unlabellable > >>> objects, and several hundred labellable ones). > >> > >> No, I can count all of them. That's what counting is /for/. > >> > > You haven't done field ecology. > > That's actually true. > > > If you do a biological science, you soon find that > > counting things, like the number of limpets on a rock, is really quite difficult > > and it's hard to be accurate. > > There is a vast difference between counting limpets on a rock and > writing C programs. Surely you can see this? Anyway, it's not that hard > to get a decent estimate: grid the rock, count the limpets in a few > representative-looking cells, calculate a mean, and multiply up. But if > you need absolute precision, move them to another rock, and tally as you > go. (If you are required to leave the rock with the same number of > limpets as before, move them to a container instead, and then put them > back when you're done.) And this has nothing whatsoever to do with > programmers' ability to comprehend multiple nesting levels. > What you do is you blindfold one researcher and get him to throw a gridded square in the general direction of the limpets. Its resting position is then regarded as random. As you can have only two or three limpets in each sub-square, you can then tally them. You need to throw the quadrant a few times to get a nice random sample. > > > (We were tasked with counting flies on carnivorous Drosera. We failed utterly, > > but we did at least measure the error between my count and my partner's. > > So we got the top mark. That field course took a week). > > What has that to do with programming? > Human limits. > >> > >>> There's also the rule of two. Identifiers need to be binary at most (Richard Heathfield, > >>> not Richard Archibald Baldwick Charles David Edmund Frederick Gideon Heathfield) > >> > >> Oh dear. I'd better change my name by deed poll, then, because I am > >> burdened with two middle names that contravene your rule. > >> > > You obey the rule of two. > > Check my email address. > > > Your middle names are quietly forgotten, except in very > > formal contexts, and when you use the rule of two as initials plus surname. > > So your rule of two allows us to aggregate items into twos. It's just as > well, isn't it, or our binary search trees would be very small: > > Add M > Okay: M > Add A > Okay: M > / > A > Add L: > Error. Redo from start. > No, it refers to identifiers. You can use a name plus surname to uniquely identify an individual or an adjective plus noun to uniquely identify and object, but you can't go up to three without stressing the human in-built parser. That's the rule of two. I've got ten of these rules, though some are a bit more contrived than others to make them sum to ten.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 18:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o72i6j$2ll$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #103052 |
On 03/02/17 17:24, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 5:01:06 PM UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 03/02/17 16:29, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 1:41:14 PM UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote: >>>> On 03/02/17 13:24, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>>> >>>>> Nesting that is simple to follow without examination (to illustrate the difference, >>>>> most people can recognise about seven objects without counting them, >>>> >>>> I can recognise all the objects on my desk without counting them. There >>>> are dozens, at least. >>>> >>> The task is to say how many objects there are on the desk, without counting. >> >> That isn't what you said before. You said most people can recognise >> about seven objects without counting them. If the question is merely one >> of identifying number, then let's see how many people can identify the >> number of asterisks listed here, without counting them: >> > Randomly scattered. You keep adding conditions that lead you further and further away from any kind of connection with C programming. C programs are /not/ randomly scattered. <100 asterisks snipped> > That's the same as Ben's highly contrived nesting counterexample. You mean it was organised? Like well-written C code should be? Good! > I did in fact have to count the rows and columns of the groups of 4, > because my font is very non-square. Then perhaps your counting rule applies to /you/, but that doesn't mean it necessarily applies to other people. <snip> >>> You haven't done field ecology. >> >> That's actually true. >> >>> If you do a biological science, you soon find that >>> counting things, like the number of limpets on a rock, is really quite difficult >>> and it's hard to be accurate. >> >> There is a vast difference between counting limpets on a rock and >> writing C programs. Surely you can see this? Anyway, it's not that hard >> to get a decent estimate: grid the rock, count the limpets in a few >> representative-looking cells, calculate a mean, and multiply up. But if >> you need absolute precision, move them to another rock, and tally as you >> go. (If you are required to leave the rock with the same number of >> limpets as before, move them to a container instead, and then put them >> back when you're done.) And this has nothing whatsoever to do with >> programmers' ability to comprehend multiple nesting levels. >> > What you do is [pretty much what I said] Yes. That's why I said it. >>> (We were tasked with counting flies on carnivorous Drosera. We failed utterly, >>> but we did at least measure the error between my count and my partner's. >>> So we got the top mark. That field course took a week). >> >> What has that to do with programming? >> > Human limits. But C programs are not flies on carniverous Drosera (and you may quote me). What may constitute a limit in one sphere of activity need not necessarily constitute a limit in a very different sphere. <snip> >>> Your middle names are quietly forgotten, except in very >>> formal contexts, and when you use the rule of two as initials plus surname. >> >> So your rule of two allows us to aggregate items into twos. It's just as >> well, isn't it, or our binary search trees would be very small: >> >> Add M >> Okay: M >> Add A >> Okay: M >> / >> A >> Add L: >> Error. Redo from start. >> > No, it refers to identifiers. You can use a name plus surname to uniquely > identify an individual or an adjective plus noun to uniquely identify > and object, but you can't go up to three without stressing the human > in-built parser. That's the rule of two. Well, I can, actually. Here's a line from a program that I've been developing recently: double rate = get_interest_rate(acl->ac[acno].product_class, taxpoint); I have no problem at all in reading the above. It tells me that I'm retrieving, for a given point in time, the interest rate prevailing for a particular financial product (product_class). acno is the loop control, and it indexes into a dynamic array of accounts, ac, for which control information (e.g. the number of elements in the dynamic array, and of course, the ac pointer itself) is stored in the struct pointed to by acl. By my count, that's an identifier that uniquely identifies an object, using four parts. > I've got ten of these rules, though some are a bit more contrived than > others to make them sum to ten. Ah! The light dawns! You have ten rules, so you must have a rule of one, a rule of two, a rule of three, and so on. But that's unreasonable, because ten is an unreasonable number. There are only four reasonable numbers in Computer Science, and ten is not one of them. The reasonable numbers are: 0: it is reasonable that you can't do something (e.g. you can't have identifiers starting with a digit); 1: it is reasonable that you can do something exactly once (e.g. one entry point to a program); INFINITY: it is reasonable that you can do something arbitrarily many times or make something arbitrarily long (e.g. in C you can have identifier names that are 30-odd characters long, which isn't going to impose a significant restriction on anyone, whereas in Fortran 77 the limit was 6, which /was/ a significant restriction, and thus unreasonable); 4: philosophically speaking, it is not reasonable to have an unreasonable number of reasonable numbers. The addition of 4 fixes this, provided only that you don't try to use it for anything. That was easy. So scrap your list and start again, and this time let the function dictate the form, rather than the other way around. -- 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 | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 10:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <589855ed.3113609@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #103041 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 1:41:14 PM UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote: > > > though you can count up to twenty of thirty randomly scattered unlabellable > > > objects, and several hundred labellable ones). > > > > No, I can count all of them. That's what counting is /for/. > > > You haven't done field ecology. If you do a biological science, you soon find that > counting things, like the number of limpets on a rock, is really quite difficult > and it's hard to be accurate. And you haven't done C programming, where all this is quite trivial. > (We were tasked with counting flies on carnivorous Drosera. We failed utterly, > but we did at least measure the error between my count and my partner's. > So we got the top mark. That field course took a week). Sheesh, man. Take a photograph! You're thinking like a sociologist, not like a scientist or a programmer. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 03:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <e85b4780-ee8f-498c-8a97-dc3aef87ea29@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #103286 |
On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 10:56:27 AM UTC, Richard Bos wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > (We were tasked with counting flies on carnivorous Drosera. We failed utterly, > > but we did at least measure the error between my count and my partner's. > > So we got the top mark. That field course took a week). > > Sheesh, man. Take a photograph! You're thinking like a sociologist, not > like a scientist or a programmer. > Won't work.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 19:55 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87shnv82x5.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #103029 |
Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: >> There's also the rule of two. Identifiers need to be binary at most >> (Richard Heathfield, not Richard Archibald Baldwick Charles David >> Edmund Frederick Gideon Heathfield) > > Oh dear. I'd better change my name by deed poll, then, because I am > burdened with two middle names that contravene your rule. Ironically, I recently tried to engage with Richard Heathfield about an email from Richard Heathfield I had heard read out on the radio. Unfortunately, as you may remember, Richard Heathfield had no idea about the email Richard Heathfield had written.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 20:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o72o1u$oeu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #103069 |
On 03/02/17 19:55, Gareth Owen wrote: > Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> writes: > >>> There's also the rule of two. Identifiers need to be binary at most >>> (Richard Heathfield, not Richard Archibald Baldwick Charles David >>> Edmund Frederick Gideon Heathfield) >> >> Oh dear. I'd better change my name by deed poll, then, because I am >> burdened with two middle names that contravene your rule. > > Ironically, I recently tried to engage with Richard Heathfield about an > email from Richard Heathfield I had heard read out on the radio. > Unfortunately, as you may remember, Richard Heathfield had no idea about > the email Richard Heathfield had written. I remember your asking about it, yes. It's a relatively unusual surname (although a Peter Heathfield (no relation AFAIK) was a senior figure in the National Union of Miners in the 1980s), but I'm aware that there is at least one Richard Heathfield on LinkedIn (and it isn't me). Malcolm's "Rule of Two" is Just Plain Wrong. -- 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 | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 17:30 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87y3xni3m6.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #103027 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > On Friday, February 3, 2017 at 1:09:34 PM UTC, Richard Heathfield wrote: >> On 03/02/17 12:59, Malcolm McLean wrote: >> > >> As for your theory of nesting, that's been debunked many times before. >> > People have claimed that it is wrong. > To be fair, Ben Bacarisse provided a highly contrived example using symmetry > and line patterning to show that about twenty levels of nesting could > be "eyeballed" > under certain circumstances. But actual evidence that I am wrong has been thin, So there is some evidence that you are wrong. What is the evidence that you are right? Here's another example: if (sin(random_to(pi)) < 0.5) ... is OK but just adding if (fabs(sin(random_to(pi))) < 0.5) ... and some limit has been reached? > and no-one has offered superior ways of determining the limit. That may be because there is no limit. <snip> > There's also the rule of two. Identifiers need to be binary at most So getnextline is just too much? Come on. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | BartC <bc@freeuk.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 18:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o72gd4$rmp$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #103053 |
On 03/02/2017 17:30, Ben Bacarisse wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: > >> To be fair, Ben Bacarisse provided a highly contrived example using symmetry >> and line patterning to show that about twenty levels of nesting could >> be "eyeballed" >> under certain circumstances. But actual evidence that I am wrong has been thin, > > So there is some evidence that you are wrong. What is the evidence that > you are right? > > Here's another example: > > if (sin(random_to(pi)) < 0.5) ... > > is OK but just adding > > if (fabs(sin(random_to(pi))) < 0.5) ... > > and some limit has been reached? > >> and no-one has offered superior ways of determining the limit. > > That may be because there is no limit. There is a limit, and it will be obvious when you are way over it. But I don't think you can pinpoint some number and say that is it. In the case of expressions, it depends also on how complex identifiers are. If they are very long with camel case and/or underlines, then even a quite simple expression can be hard to grok at a glance. Sometimes also there is a pattern which can make easier to 'see' complex constructs. > <snip> >> There's also the rule of two. Identifiers need to be binary at most > > So getnextline is just too much? Come on. Looking at other people's code I'm often surprised at what long-winded identifiers they use. Examples from gcc's windows.h: WinCapabilityEnterpriseAuthenticationSid WinCapabilitySharedUserCertificatesSid MICROSOFT_WINDOWS_WINBASE_H_DEFINE_INTERLOCKED_CPLUSPLUS_OVERLOADS I mean, it would take me a few seconds to compare two such similar names, if they are not vertically aligned, to see if they are identical or not. At this length, it may even be hard to see - within your central vision - the whole identifier at once! (Here are the two longest names from that windows.h: CRYPTNET_PRE_FETCH_MIN_BEFORE_NEXT_UPDATE_PRE_FETCH_PERIOD_SECONDS_VALUE_NAME CRYPTNET_PRE_FETCH_VALIDITY_PERIOD_AFTER_NEXT_UPDATE_PRE_FETCH_DIVISOR_VALUE_NAME and from gcc.c: NET_IPV4_NF_CONNTRACK_SCTP_TIMEOUT_SHUTDOWN_ACK_SENT BT_FN_COMPLEX_LONGDOUBLE_COMPLEX_LONGDOUBLE_COMPLEX_LONGDOUBLE That last looks like something has gone haywire.) -- Bartc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 21:27 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o72p11$sm8$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #103058 |
On 03/02/17 19:00, BartC wrote: > There is a limit, and it will be obvious when you are way over it. But I > don't think you can pinpoint some number and say that is it. > There is /no/ limit. There can be times when something is clearly too complex, but that does not mean there is an actual limit point. There is no boundary here - there is a gradual transition from very simple to too complex, and there is no definable limit point. It's like going from a room being "too hot" to "too cold", or a film being "too long", or anything else with a transition. No one thinks that 20 layers of nesting is going to be clear except in very special circumstances such as Ben's example (or a lisp program...). But Malcolm's theory that there /is/ a specific limit, and that limit is 3, is absolute bollocks. It has no basis in any fact, statistic, rationality or common opinion - it's just something he has made up, and likes the sound of.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-03 21:35 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <87fujvhs92.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #103058 |
BartC <bc@freeuk.com> writes: > On 03/02/2017 17:30, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> writes: >> > >>> To be fair, Ben Bacarisse provided a highly contrived example using symmetry >>> and line patterning to show that about twenty levels of nesting could >>> be "eyeballed" >>> under certain circumstances. But actual evidence that I am wrong has been thin, >> >> So there is some evidence that you are wrong. What is the evidence that >> you are right? >> >> Here's another example: >> >> if (sin(random_to(pi)) < 0.5) ... >> >> is OK but just adding >> >> if (fabs(sin(random_to(pi))) < 0.5) ... >> >> and some limit has been reached? >> >>> and no-one has offered superior ways of determining the limit. >> >> That may be because there is no limit. > > There is a limit, and it will be obvious when you are way over it. But > I don't think you can pinpoint some number and say that is it. Maybe I was not clear. Malcolm McLean referred to "the limit" -- a single number that applies so widely that a simple rule can be stated. I was referring to that single-number-suitable-for-a-rule limit. > In the case of expressions, it depends also on how complex identifiers > are. If they are very long with camel case and/or underlines, then > even a quite simple expression can be hard to grok at a glance. > > Sometimes also there is a pattern which can make easier to 'see' > complex constructs. Yes. I think we agree -- there is no single limit that can usefully be codified into a rule. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 10:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <58985560.2972687@news.xs4all.nl> |
| In reply to | #103027 |
Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: > There's also the rule of two. Identifiers need to be binary at most (Richard Heathfield, > not Richard Archibald Baldwick Charles David Edmund Frederick Gideon Heathfield) There are at least two other people called Richard Bos on the 'net, and at least one other of them is also a C programmer. I will keep my middle name, thank you very much. Richard
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 14:06 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o79s8i$3p8$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #103285 |
On 06/02/17 11:53, Richard Bos wrote: > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: > >> There's also the rule of two. Identifiers need to be binary at most (Richard Heathfield, >> not Richard Archibald Baldwick Charles David Edmund Frederick Gideon Heathfield) > > There are at least two other people called Richard Bos on the 'net, and > at least one other of them is also a C programmer. I will keep my middle > name, thank you very much. > > Richard > And just imagine how many David Browns there are out there...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 05:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <14d08c86-8853-419b-9c9a-32431237229a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #103294 |
On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 1:06:11 PM UTC, David Brown wrote: > On 06/02/17 11:53, Richard Bos wrote: > > Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: > > > >> There's also the rule of two. Identifiers need to be binary at most (Richard Heathfield, > >> not Richard Archibald Baldwick Charles David Edmund Frederick Gideon Heathfield) > > > > There are at least two other people called Richard Bos on the 'net, and > > at least one other of them is also a C programmer. I will keep my middle > > name, thank you very much. > > > > Richard > > > > And just imagine how many David Browns there are out there... > But you post as "David Brown". There is a small chance of a name clash, you quite possibly have been in the same school class as another David Brown or worked in the same office. But the rule of two overrrides that.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 14:49 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o79up8$d44$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #103295 |
On 06/02/17 14:22, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 1:06:11 PM UTC, David Brown wrote: >> On 06/02/17 11:53, Richard Bos wrote: >>> Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> wrote: >>> >>>> There's also the rule of two. Identifiers need to be binary at most (Richard Heathfield, >>>> not Richard Archibald Baldwick Charles David Edmund Frederick Gideon Heathfield) >>> >>> There are at least two other people called Richard Bos on the 'net, and >>> at least one other of them is also a C programmer. I will keep my middle >>> name, thank you very much. >>> >>> Richard >>> >> >> And just imagine how many David Browns there are out there... >> > But you post as "David Brown". There is a small chance of a name clash, you quite possibly > have been in the same school class as another David Brown or worked in the same office. > There are other David Brown's on Usenet, other David Brown programmers, other David Brown's in Norway. The point is that a two-part identifier is not sufficient for some purposes. However, it seems to be unique enough in /this/ newsgroup. > But the rule of two overrrides that. > There is no "rule of two" except in your imagination. Even if it existed, and you could actually state it properly, it would not "override" anything. No rule that you make up will suddenly make "David Brown" a unique identifier. Even if I include my middle name, which I rarely use, it is still not unique - a "rule of three" won't work either.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 05:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <9ac8983c-1229-4d21-b501-b4d45cebd04d@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #103296 |
On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 1:49:13 PM UTC, David Brown wrote: > On 06/02/17 14:22, Malcolm McLean wrote: > > > There is no "rule of two" except in your imagination. Even if it > existed, and you could actually state it properly, it would not > "override" anything. No rule that you make up will suddenly make "David > Brown" a unique identifier. Even if I include my middle name, which I > rarely use, it is still not unique - a "rule of three" won't work either. > We could insist that all C identifiers be globally unique identifiers. Simply append a GUID to the identifier id. Or even a human-meaningful string. We don't do that because it would be humanly intolerable. Instead we use scoping. But the two part name seems to be natural. Formal names often have several parts, but they are reduced to one or two in everyday speech. Virtually everyone here has identified themselves wth a two part moniker.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 14:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <o7a05k$i99$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #103297 |
On 06/02/17 13:59, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 1:49:13 PM UTC, David Brown wrote: >> On 06/02/17 14:22, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> >> There is no "rule of two" except in your imagination. Even if it >> existed, and you could actually state it properly, it would not >> "override" anything. No rule that you make up will suddenly make "David >> Brown" a unique identifier. Even if I include my middle name, which I >> rarely use, it is still not unique - a "rule of three" won't work either. >> > We could insist that all C identifiers be globally unique identifiers. Simply append a > GUID to the identifier id. Or even a human-meaningful string. We don't do that > because it would be humanly intolerable. Instead we use scoping. > > But the two part name seems to be natural. No, in normal face-to-face conversation we use just one name. Your family don't call you "Malcolm McLean" (I trust!), but just "Malcolm". Surnames are added only when ambiguity needs to be avoided (such as in this newsgroup). Middle names are a further way to disambiguate in cases where that, too, is necessary. And sometimes even that is not sufficient (as in, say, the HMRC database). > Formal names often have several > parts, but they are reduced to one or two in everyday speech. Virtually > everyone here has identified themselves wth a two part moniker. That's because one isn't enough here (we have several Richards, for example). But two happens to be enough. If it weren't enough (if, for example, another David Brown showed up), we'd need some way to tell them apart. If neither were happy to be called Dave, we'd hope for a middle initial, at least. The "Rule of Two" is a fiction that fails to take into account the very real and very common situations where you need more than two parts to an identifier. -- 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 | supercat@casperkitty.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 06:13 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <6e1ae45f-5e95-4a14-99f2-42a701ef9c92@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #103297 |
On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 7:59:19 AM UTC-6, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> We could insist that all C identifiers be globally unique identifiers. Simply append a
> GUID to the identifier id. Or even a human-meaningful string. We don't do that
> because it would be humanly intolerable. Instead we use scoping.
>
> But the two part name seems to be natural. Formal names often have several
> parts, but they are reduced to one or two in everyday speech. Virtually
> everyone here has identified themselves wth a two part moniker.
Some development systems designate a unique name for each compilation unit,
typically including characters not legal in a C identifier, and then give
everything within that unit a name that combines the unit name with the C
name. This allows every symbol used within the program to be included in
the global symbol table listing, which can be handy if code uses the
equivalent of printf("%p",...) to output pointer values. I think the
pattern of having a globally-unique scope identifier along with a name that
is unique within that scope is a good one.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-02-06 15:22 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <o7a0nm$k7a$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #103297 |
On 06/02/17 14:59, Malcolm McLean wrote: > On Monday, February 6, 2017 at 1:49:13 PM UTC, David Brown wrote: >> On 06/02/17 14:22, Malcolm McLean wrote: >>> >> There is no "rule of two" except in your imagination. Even if it >> existed, and you could actually state it properly, it would not >> "override" anything. No rule that you make up will suddenly make "David >> Brown" a unique identifier. Even if I include my middle name, which I >> rarely use, it is still not unique - a "rule of three" won't work either. >> > We could insist that all C identifiers be globally unique identifiers. Simply append a > GUID to the identifier id. Or even a human-meaningful string. We don't do that > because it would be humanly intolerable. Instead we use scoping. > > But the two part name seems to be natural. Formal names often have several > parts, but they are reduced to one or two in everyday speech. Virtually > everyone here has identified themselves wth a two part moniker. > Some people use one part names, some people use two, some people use initialise, some use email addresses, some use pseudonyms. Some people have a single "first" name, other people have two first names. Some people use both of these, others use just one of them. Some people have a single "last" name, others have two - sometimes these are joined by a hyphen, sometimes not. Some people have one or more "middle" names. Some people like to put their given names before their family names, others like the opposite order. Some people prefer to use a title, others don't. Let me try to make this as simple as possible: There is /no/ rule. There is no "rule of two", or "rule of three", or anything like it. Claiming it repeatedly does not make it real. Common patterns are not rules. A habit that happens to be popular amongst people around you is not more "natural" than alternatives used elsewhere.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 8 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 … 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web