Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.c > #10412 > unrolled thread
| Started by | jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2011-09-18 00:29 +0200 |
| Last post | 2011-09-20 00:22 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 284 — 42 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.c
Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-18 00:29 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Harald van Dijk <truedfx@gmail.com> - 2011-09-17 15:38 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-18 00:57 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-18 16:30 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-18 19:25 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-19 07:53 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-18 20:00 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-19 08:23 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-18 20:32 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-18 23:28 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-09-18 16:38 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 04:27 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-09-18 21:48 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 05:38 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 09:14 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-19 10:10 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-19 05:07 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-19 14:24 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 16:10 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-19 16:50 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Pfaff <blp@cs.stanford.edu> - 2011-09-19 08:11 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 17:21 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-19 16:27 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-19 10:14 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-19 19:56 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-09-19 13:20 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-20 18:31 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-20 17:44 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-20 17:06 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-21 01:37 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-22 22:03 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-28 02:33 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 13:01 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 14:42 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-20 10:08 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 07:55 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 16:39 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-09-19 09:48 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 12:49 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 22:45 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid ImpalerCore <jadill33@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 14:02 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-19 07:14 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 16:13 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-19 17:36 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 20:09 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 20:36 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-20 08:05 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 20:18 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Jorgen Grahn <grahn+nntp@snipabacken.se> - 2011-09-19 23:37 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-21 12:23 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-21 12:09 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid websnarf <websnarf@gmail.com> - 2011-09-26 22:01 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-19 13:51 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 20:11 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-09-19 22:21 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-20 00:05 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-09-18 23:34 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid pacman@kosh.dhis.org (Alan Curry) - 2011-09-18 22:47 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid tom st denis <tom@iahu.ca> - 2011-09-19 04:50 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-19 13:42 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 20:30 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-20 08:09 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 22:38 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-09-19 20:50 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-19 22:53 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-19 22:30 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-20 00:05 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-20 00:31 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-09-19 22:43 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-20 00:59 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-20 11:50 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid blp@cs.stanford.edu (Ben Pfaff) - 2011-09-19 19:03 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-20 14:11 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-19 21:49 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-28 06:17 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-28 07:02 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ike Naar <ike@sverige.freeshell.org> - 2011-09-20 07:26 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-21 12:31 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-21 12:26 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-21 21:20 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-21 19:40 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-22 07:46 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "Rosario Pulvirenti" <NoInUseno1Spam@non.usare.invalid> - 2011-09-22 07:38 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-20 09:05 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-20 07:16 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-20 09:50 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-20 10:38 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-20 04:29 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-20 12:04 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-20 05:25 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-20 16:49 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-22 22:35 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-23 07:59 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-23 12:33 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-23 12:23 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-23 17:34 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-23 17:08 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-23 06:49 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-23 12:20 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-09-26 22:59 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-09-30 01:27 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-30 08:38 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-10-04 12:40 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kenneth Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2011-09-21 12:00 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-21 21:17 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-18 23:21 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-18 17:32 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Joe Wright <joewwright@comcast.net> - 2011-09-18 23:10 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-19 03:34 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2011-09-18 22:32 -0600
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-20 14:18 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 18:15 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-20 17:49 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-20 17:02 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-20 20:35 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-09-20 20:30 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-20 22:35 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-22 22:07 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-22 16:11 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-23 12:28 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-23 06:44 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-23 17:33 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-23 11:31 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-23 20:09 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-23 20:02 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-23 13:49 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-24 09:01 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-23 23:08 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-24 09:43 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-23 22:13 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-23 23:45 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-24 00:01 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-24 09:47 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-23 17:22 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-23 23:47 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-24 09:50 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-23 18:06 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-24 10:25 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-24 08:02 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-24 14:13 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-24 14:07 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-24 13:15 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-24 15:20 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-24 11:28 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-24 15:45 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-24 20:07 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-09-24 14:31 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-24 21:49 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-24 14:40 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-25 01:14 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-01-24 13:44 -0800
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-09-24 20:23 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-24 18:44 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-25 07:04 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-24 17:30 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-24 12:34 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-25 01:00 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-25 21:30 +1300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-25 05:08 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-26 08:39 +1300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-24 20:04 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-23 17:09 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-23 23:43 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-09-27 20:48 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-10-03 19:59 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Michael Press <rubrum@pacbell.net> - 2011-10-03 17:32 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-24 13:53 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 21:18 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-20 20:35 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-20 22:45 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-21 08:09 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-09-22 13:04 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-22 11:38 -0500
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Noob <root@127.0.0.1> - 2011-09-23 10:41 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-22 22:20 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-22 22:15 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-23 12:30 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-09-26 22:59 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-27 02:06 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-27 03:39 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "Rosario Pulvirenti" <NoInUseno1Spam@non.usare.invalid> - 2011-10-03 19:51 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-10-03 19:11 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "Rosario Pulvirenti" <NoInUseno1Spam@non.usare.invalid> - 2011-10-04 16:20 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid China Blue Corn Chips <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-10-04 08:11 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-10-04 12:19 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-27 13:56 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-27 13:13 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-27 12:08 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-29 01:00 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 21:59 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> - 2011-09-22 22:08 +0300
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-20 17:00 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 20:32 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-20 18:53 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 22:55 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 21:50 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-21 15:48 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-21 16:12 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-21 09:42 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-21 18:01 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 21:00 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 21:32 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-22 12:40 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-22 13:00 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-22 14:54 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-22 14:03 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-22 11:39 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-24 13:44 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-24 12:23 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-29 04:52 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-29 04:51 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> - 2011-09-20 19:32 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 22:48 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-20 17:29 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 23:45 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-21 10:35 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-29 05:04 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-29 04:54 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-20 17:19 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 23:26 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-21 14:35 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-22 00:09 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-21 19:08 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-21 05:25 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 21:11 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 23:01 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-21 03:11 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-21 12:16 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-21 03:23 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 20:44 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 22:53 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-21 23:08 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-21 21:14 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2011-09-22 07:17 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-22 16:37 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-22 16:25 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-22 11:36 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-24 13:37 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-24 13:50 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-24 14:47 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-24 20:43 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-24 20:26 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-09-24 20:53 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-25 02:30 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Richard Damon <news.x.richarddamon@xoxy.net> - 2011-09-24 22:24 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2011-09-25 12:36 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-21 13:56 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "Rosario Pulvirenti" <NoInUseno1Spam@non.usare.invalid> - 2011-09-22 07:38 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-22 02:06 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-22 15:24 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-22 11:35 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-24 13:25 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> - 2011-09-26 22:59 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2012-01-24 13:30 -0800
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nobody <nobody@nowhere.com> - 2011-09-22 18:23 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) - 2011-09-21 15:40 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 20:20 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-19 06:39 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-19 10:06 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> - 2011-09-20 07:03 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid pete <pfiland@mindspring.com> - 2011-09-19 19:17 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 20:57 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 05:14 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-19 18:02 +1200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) - 2011-09-19 06:18 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 17:50 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 20:45 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> - 2011-09-28 08:05 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2011-09-28 09:14 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2011-09-18 23:52 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 20:45 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> - 2011-09-20 23:35 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> - 2011-09-21 19:53 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "BartC" <bc@freeuk.com> - 2011-09-17 23:54 +0100
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-18 00:59 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Heikki Kallasjoki <fis+usenet@zem.fi> - 2011-09-17 23:35 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid jacob navia <jacob@spamsink.net> - 2011-09-18 01:47 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Geoff <geoff@invalid.invalid> - 2011-09-17 17:15 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Максим Фомин <maxim@maxim-fomin.ru> - 2011-09-18 00:43 -0700
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "Rosario Pulvirenti" <NoInUseno1Spam@non.usare.invalid> - 2011-09-18 10:34 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "Rosario Pulvirenti" <NoInUseno1Spam@non.usare.invalid> - 2011-09-20 09:28 +0200
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2011-09-18 12:55 +0000
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid "Joel C. Salomon" <joelcsalomon@gmail.com> - 2011-09-19 10:29 -0400
Re: Testing if a pointer is valid China Blue Corn Chips <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> - 2011-09-20 00:22 -0700
Page 10 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 15 Next page →
| From | "Rosario Pulvirenti" <NoInUseno1Spam@non.usare.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-03 19:51 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4e89f56e$0$15670$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it> |
| In reply to | #10990 |
"Richard Harter" <cri@tiac.net> ha scritto nel messaggio news:4e81447b.375438511@text.giganews.com... > On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 02:06:19 +0100, Ben Bacarisse > <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: > >>Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> writes: >> >>> On 2011-09-22, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Is one permitted to ask why they didn't write > for (int x = 0; x < N;x++) > inverse_table[function_table[x]] = x; yes i use that on one of my first programs in C i don't know assembly traslation so don't know if it is right [possible modify 2 times function_table[x] so could be not ok to what i know] but the program use it was ok because the invTraslation was ok > or should one just appreciate it for the thing of beauty that it is? > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-03 19:11 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0.33ce4f512457529df2ec.20111003191157BST.87pqie54ia.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #11212 |
"Rosario Pulvirenti" <NoInUseno1Spam@non.usare.invalid> writes: > "Richard Harter" <cri@tiac.net> ha scritto nel messaggio > news:4e81447b.375438511@text.giganews.com... >> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 02:06:19 +0100, Ben Bacarisse >> <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >> >>>Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> writes: >>> >>>> On 2011-09-22, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >> Is one permitted to ask why they didn't write >> for (int x = 0; x < N;x++) >> inverse_table[function_table[x]] = x; > > yes i use that on one of my first programs in C > i don't know assembly traslation so don't know if it is right > [possible modify 2 times function_table[x] so could be not ok > to what i know] Do you mean that you are not sure if the code is really proper C, with no undefined behavour? If so, there's nothing to worry about: it's fine. <snip> -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rosario Pulvirenti" <NoInUseno1Spam@non.usare.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-04 16:20 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <4e8b159a$0$44206$4fafbaef@reader1.news.tin.it> |
| In reply to | #11214 |
"Ben Bacarisse" <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> ha scritto nel messaggio news:0.33ce4f512457529df2ec.20111003191157BST.87pqie54ia.fsf@bsb.me.uk... > "Rosario Pulvirenti" <NoInUseno1Spam@non.usare.invalid> writes: > >> "Richard Harter" <cri@tiac.net> ha scritto nel messaggio >> news:4e81447b.375438511@text.giganews.com... >>> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 02:06:19 +0100, Ben Bacarisse >>> <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: >>> >>>>Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> writes: >>>> >>>>> On 2011-09-22, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: >>> Is one permitted to ask why they didn't write >>> for (int x = 0; x < N;x++) >>> inverse_table[function_table[x]] = x; >> >> yes i use that on one of my first programs in C better one of my first program in C; i remember was one program to crypt-decrypt text >> i don't know assembly traslation so don't know if it is right >> [possible modify 2 times function_table[x] so could be not ok >> to what i know] > > Do you mean that you are not sure if the code is really proper C, with > no undefined behavour? If so, there's nothing to worry about: it's fine. yes it is fine if function_table!=inverse_table [and this has to be] > <snip> > -- > Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | China Blue Corn Chips <chine.bleu@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-04 08:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <chine.bleu-DFE333.08113304102011@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #10990 |
In article <4e81447b.375438511@text.giganews.com>,
cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 02:06:19 +0100, Ben Bacarisse
> <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote:
>
> >Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> writes:
> >
> >> On 2011-09-22, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>> Have you also had an appraisal where your manager looks at your
> >>> last year's work, and informs you that you had a massively negative
> >>> productivity, as measured by lines of code?
> >>
> >> I haven't, but I probably will if he ever sees that post, because he's
> >> got that kind of sense of humor.
> >>
> >>> u32 getBit(u32 v, int b)
> >>> {
> >>> int i;
> >>> u32 m=1;
> >>> for(i=1; i<b; ++i) {
> >>> m<<=1;
> >>> }
> >>> v&=m;
> >>> return v;
> >>> }
> >>
> >> That... is a thing of beauty. Doesn't it just make you wish that you'd
> >> been able to see the multiple attempts to get it to work correctly? I'd
> >> put five bucks on it originally having been "i=0" as the loop
> >> initializer.
> >
> >I once saw some code that had to tabulate a function and it's inverse.
> >Both were permutations of the integers in the range 0..(N-1):
> >
> > for (int x = 0; x < N; x++)
> > function_table[x] = /* relatively complex code */;
> >
> >The inverse was not computable but, hey, we have a table of the function
> >so we can search it:
> >
> > for (int y = 0; y < N; y++)
> > /* find x such that f(x) = y */
> > for (int x = 0; x < N; x++)
> > if (function_table[x] == y)
> > inverse_table[y] = x;
>
> Is one permitted to ask why they didn't write
> for (int x = 0; x < N;x++)
> inverse_table[function_table[x]] = x;
>
> or should one just appreciate it for the thing of beauty that it is?
Are you sure the function is a bijection? Or at least a surjection?
--
Celle est une langue. | With the nutty taste of wild hickory nuts.
C'est francais /|\ I'm whoever you want me to be.
et tres, tres sexuel. \|/ Annoying Usenet one post at a time.
- China Azul | At least I can stay in character.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-10-04 12:19 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <4E8B3212.1010202@verizon.net> |
| In reply to | #11243 |
On 10/04/2011 11:11 AM, China Blue Corn Chips wrote: > In article <4e81447b.375438511@text.giganews.com>, > cri@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote: > >> On Tue, 27 Sep 2011 02:06:19 +0100, Ben Bacarisse >> <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> wrote: ... >>> I once saw some code that had to tabulate a function and it's inverse. >>> Both were permutations of the integers in the range 0..(N-1): >>> >>> for (int x = 0; x < N; x++) >>> function_table[x] = /* relatively complex code */; ... >> Is one permitted to ask why they didn't write >> for (int x = 0; x < N;x++) >> inverse_table[function_table[x]] = x; >> >> or should one just appreciate it for the thing of beauty that it is? > > Are you sure the function is a bijection? Or at least a surjection? The function is described as having an inverse. The function and its inverse are both described as permutations of the integers in the range [0, N-1]. I'd have to think for a little while before putting together a formal proof, but off-hand, that seems sufficient to guarantee that it's a bijection. Am I missing something?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-27 13:56 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <8739fiuubs.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #10983 |
Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes:
> Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> writes:
> > On 2011-09-22, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Have you also had an appraisal where your manager looks at your
> >> last year's work, and informs you that you had a massively negative
> >> productivity, as measured by lines of code?
> >
> > I haven't, but I probably will if he ever sees that post, because he's
> > got that kind of sense of humor.
> >
> >> u32 getBit(u32 v, int b)
> >> {
> >> int i;
> >> u32 m=1;
> >> for(i=1; i<b; ++i) {
> >> m<<=1;
> >> }
> >> v&=m;
> >> return v;
> >> }
> >
> > That... is a thing of beauty. Doesn't it just make you wish that you'd
> > been able to see the multiple attempts to get it to work correctly? I'd
> > put five bucks on it originally having been "i=0" as the loop
> > initializer.
>
> I once saw some code that had to tabulate a function and it's inverse.
> Both were permutations of the integers in the range 0..(N-1):
>
> for (int x = 0; x < N; x++)
> function_table[x] = /* relatively complex code */;
>
> The inverse was not computable but, hey, we have a table of the function
> so we can search it:
>
> for (int y = 0; y < N; y++)
> /* find x such that f(x) = y */
> for (int x = 0; x < N; x++)
> if (function_table[x] == y)
> inverse_table[y] = x;
"What are you laughing at?" my g/f asks - and 30s later she's
laughing too, and she's not even a programmer.
Again, a thing of beauty, something that displays a some shallow
insight and yet the complete inability to see the obvious next step.
Phil
--
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."
-- Napoleon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-27 13:13 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <0.53efd4cd38bdd7973e1b.20110927131335BST.87ty7ymbdc.fsf@bsb.me.uk> |
| In reply to | #11006 |
Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> writes: > Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> writes: <snip> >> I once saw some code that had to tabulate a function and it's inverse. >> Both were permutations of the integers in the range 0..(N-1): >> >> for (int x = 0; x < N; x++) >> function_table[x] = /* relatively complex code */; >> >> The inverse was not computable but, hey, we have a table of the function >> so we can search it: >> >> for (int y = 0; y < N; y++) >> /* find x such that f(x) = y */ >> for (int x = 0; x < N; x++) >> if (function_table[x] == y) >> inverse_table[y] = x; > > "What are you laughing at?" my g/f asks - and 30s later she's > laughing too, and she's not even a programmer. > > Again, a thing of beauty, something that displays a some shallow > insight and yet the complete inability to see the obvious next step. The twist (if you can call it that) is that there was absolutely no need to change the code. The tables were calculated only once and were not large (a few hundred elements, I think) but the subsequent calculation was very expensive, so the cost of this initialisation was almost unmeasurable. I did change it though. I had to be able to sleep. -- Ben.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-27 12:08 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87mxdquzcu.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #10975 |
Seebs <usenet-nospam@seebs.net> writes:
> On 2011-09-22, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > Have you also had an appraisal where your manager looks at your
> > last year's work, and informs you that you had a massively negative
> > productivity, as measured by lines of code?
>
> I haven't, but I probably will if he ever sees that post, because he's
> got that kind of sense of humor.
>
> > u32 getBit(u32 v, int b)
> > {
> > int i;
> > u32 m=1;
> > for(i=1; i<b; ++i) {
> > m<<=1;
> > }
> > v&=m;
> > return v;
> > }
>
> That... is a thing of beauty. Doesn't it just make you wish that you'd
> been able to see the multiple attempts to get it to work correctly? I'd
> put five bucks on it originally having been "i=0" as the loop initializer.
That's why I remember it almost verbatim. Out by one in a loop which did
something that could be done in one swell foop; thus displaying a knowledge
of the <<= operator, yet apparently know understanding of the << operator.
You owe me 5 bucks - the i=1 was causing lines to not be allocated in
the multiplexer, which was causing customers (when they could get
lines) to complain about poor service. Finding that, as you say, thing
of beauty made the bugfix one of the most fun I've ever done. However,
at only 10 lines removed code, it wasn't very good for my negative
productivity, as that was several days' work.
Phil
--
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."
-- Napoleon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam@hotmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-29 01:00 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9e561a1f-bdfc-4df3-8c14-9db6d1690ec1@dd6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #10631 |
On Sep 21, 9:09 am, Willem <wil...@toad.stack.nl> wrote: > jacob navia wrote: > ) Le 20/09/11 22:35, Willem a ?crit : > )> Given the average programmer I come across, I prefer the first. > )> > )> Or, to put it bluntly: in the Real World(tm), most programmers are > )> a bunch of hacks, who write crap code, so the invention of a language > )> that takes away responsibility from them is a Good Thing(tm). > ) > ) What bothers me of those would be managers I have come across (you are > > Try again. I'm a maintenance programmer. In other words: I fix the mess > that those hacks leave behind. In the caste system, which you seem so > proud of, um. I think he was being sarcastic. Jacob *disapproves* of the so- called caste system. Whilst he has a point that programmign gets deskilled by being chopped up and micro-managed. It is also a fact that there are a lot of poor programmers out there and a lot of crap code. Deskilling and micro-management won't fix this of course. > I would be ranked lower than them, because I get to clean up > their mess. > > So your whole rant falls flat on its face.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-20 21:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4e78fec3$0$24710$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #10599 |
Willem wrote: > So, either the language takes care of things, or the programmer > should be aware that the language does not take care of things. > > Given the average programmer I come across, I prefer the first. > > Or, to put it bluntly: in the Real World(tm), most programmers are > a bunch of hacks, who write crap code, so the invention of a language > that takes away responsibility from them is a Good Thing(tm). In that case, those programmers should avoid posing a danger to themselves and others by using tools which they don't know how to use. There are plenty of tools in the real world which can easily do some real world harm, but as the professionals who use them happen to be trained in their use then they are as good as being full-proof. Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-22 22:08 +0300 |
| Message-ID | <87mxdw2y4o.fsf@bazspaz.fatphil.org> |
| In reply to | #10599 |
Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> writes: > Rui Maciel wrote: > ) Willem wrote: > ) > )> Or the language can simply make sure that the pointed-to object keeps > )> existing untill all pointers to it are gone. Which a lot of languages > )> do, actually. > ) > ) ...or the programmer should be aware that objects do have a life time, and > ) it doesn't make sense to write code which refers to objects whose life time > ) has passed. > > So, either the language takes care of things, or the programmer > should be aware that the language does not take care of things. > > Given the average programmer I come across, I prefer the first. > > Or, to put it bluntly: in the Real World(tm), most programmers are > a bunch of hacks, who write crap code, so the invention of a language > that takes away responsibility from them is a Good Thing(tm). And yet even with such languages, people still manage to make a complete balls-up. Spikes on steering wheels is the only thing that will improve driving skills. Phil -- "Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich." -- Napoleon
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Willem <willem@toad.stack.nl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-20 17:00 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <slrnj7hhm1.2b40.willem@toad.stack.nl> |
| In reply to | #10579 |
August Karlstrom wrote:
) On 2011-09-20 16:18, Kenny McCormack wrote:
)> I know of a language that has "pointers" - they call them pointers and use
)> the same "*" and "&" syntax that C uses - but these pointers are entirely safe
)> to use.
)
) A language with an "address of" operator cannot be safe as is
) illustrated by the following example:
)
) T *x;
)
) void f(void)
) {
) T y;
)
) x = &y;
) }
)
) After calling f, x is invalid.
Or not. Depending on the language. Which was the point. Duh.
SaSW, Willem
--
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
made in the above text. For all I know I might be
drugged or something..
No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-20 20:32 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <j5am7g$nlu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #10583 |
On 2011-09-20 19:00, Willem wrote:
> August Karlstrom wrote:
> ) A language with an "address of" operator cannot be safe as is
> ) illustrated by the following example:
> )
> ) T *x;
> )
> ) void f(void)
> ) {
> ) T y;
> )
> ) x =&y;
> ) }
> )
> ) After calling f, x is invalid.
>
> Or not. Depending on the language. Which was the point. Duh.
Could you describe the semantics of scope and and lifetimes of variables
in such a language or do you know of an actual language where the above
code would make sense?
August
--
The competent programmer is fully aware of the limited size of his own
skull. He therefore approaches his task with full humility, and avoids
clever tricks like the plague. --Edsger Dijkstra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-20 18:53 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <j5anfa$def$3@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #10587 |
In article <j5am7g$nlu$1@dont-email.me>,
August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>Could you describe the semantics of scope and and lifetimes of variables
>in such a language or do you know of an actual language where the above
>code would make sense?
You are really stretching things here. The code you posted is C code,
right? How could it "make sense" in any other context?
To clarify: If we posit the existence of another language, in which pointers
are safe, then obviously that language isn't C. That's what I've been
saying all along. I don't see how posting C code is likely to tell us
anything about non-C languages (i.e., languages that aren't C).
Nitpickers note: Yes, I know there are some languages that are "almost C" -
probably close enough to C that your code would make sense to a
user/programmer of that "almost C" language, but that's obviously not the
point. And, as our friendly neighborhood regulars are so fond of pointing
out, C++ (for example) is completely different from C (as is C# and, for
that matter, anything else that isn't, in their tiny world view, C).
But I digress...
--
But the Bush apologists hope that you won't remember all that. And they
also have a theory, which I've been hearing more and more - namely,
that President Obama, though not yet in office or even elected, caused the
2008 slump. You see, people were worried in advance about his future
policies, and that's what caused the economy to tank. Seriously.
(Paul Krugman - Addicted to Bush)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | August Karlstrom <fusionfile@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-20 22:55 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <j5auj3$kii$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #10589 |
On 2011-09-20 20:53, Kenny McCormack wrote: > In article<j5am7g$nlu$1@dont-email.me>, > August Karlstrom<fusionfile@gmail.com> wrote: > ... >> Could you describe the semantics of scope and and lifetimes of variables >> in such a language or do you know of an actual language where the above >> code would make sense? > > You are really stretching things here. The code you posted is C code, > right? How could it "make sense" in any other context? You mentioned a language that use the same syntax for pointer indirection and address retrieval so I wrote a simple C-like example. Don't get hung up on the syntax; we are talking about the semantics here. August -- The competent programmer is fully aware of the limited size of his own skull. He therefore approaches his task with full humility, and avoids clever tricks like the plague. --Edsger Dijkstra
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-20 21:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <4e78fc9e$0$24700$a729d347@news.telepac.pt> |
| In reply to | #10589 |
Kenny McCormack wrote: > You are really stretching things here. The code you posted is C code, > right? How could it "make sense" in any other context? > > To clarify: If we posit the existence of another language, in which > pointers are safe, then obviously that language isn't C. The problem with this sort of assertion is that it is based on examples which represent undefined behaviour, which, in this case, represent "erroneous program constructs". If a tool is used contrary to how it was designed to be used and in ways which are considered to be dangerous and an obvious source of problems then this isn't an issue of whether a specific feature is safe or unsafe. The real issue is whether the programmer actually knows what he is doing. If the programmer doesn't know what he is doing then, no matter how "safe" that language is, the programmer will always find ways to screw things up. Rui Maciel
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | gazelle@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-21 15:48 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <j5d117$bg7$2@news.xmission.com> |
| In reply to | #10604 |
In article <4e78fc9e$0$24700$a729d347@news.telepac.pt>, Rui Maciel <rui.maciel@gmail.com> wrote: ... >The problem with this sort of assertion is that it is based on examples >which represent undefined behaviour, which, in this case, represent >"erroneous program constructs". If a tool is used contrary to how it was >designed to be used and in ways which are considered to be dangerous and an >obvious source of problems then this isn't an issue of whether a specific >feature is safe or unsafe. The real issue is whether the programmer >actually knows what he is doing. If the programmer doesn't know what he is >doing then, no matter how "safe" that language is, the programmer will >always find ways to screw things up. The primary goal of the computer industry over the past 50 years has been to make it impossible for programmers to make mistakes. I.e., to reduce the art of programming down to the level of flipping burgers at McDonalds (and at comparable pay). They have almost succeeded. And will do any day now... -- Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as foolish, and by the rulers as useful. (Seneca the Younger, 65 AD)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-21 16:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <j5d2dv$gr1$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #10645 |
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 15:48:55 +0000, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> In article <4e78fc9e$0$24700$a729d347@news.telepac.pt>, Rui Maciel
> <rui.maciel@gmail.com> wrote: ...
>>The problem with this sort of assertion is that it is based on examples
>>which represent undefined behaviour, which, in this case, represent
>>"erroneous program constructs". If a tool is used contrary to how it
>>was designed to be used and in ways which are considered to be dangerous
>>and an obvious source of problems then this isn't an issue of whether a
>>specific feature is safe or unsafe. The real issue is whether the
>>programmer actually knows what he is doing. If the programmer doesn't
>>know what he is doing then, no matter how "safe" that language is, the
>>programmer will always find ways to screw things up.
>
> The primary goal of the computer industry over the past 50 years has
> been to make it impossible for programmers to make mistakes. I.e., to
> reduce the art of programming down to the level of flipping burgers at
> McDonalds (and at comparable pay).
Depends on what you call "the industry", the management surely would (if
they could).
> They have almost succeeded. And will do any day now...
I'm not quite that pessimistic. Non-trivial programs are
never trivially easy to write, whatever the language.
<quote src="Alan Perlis ACM-SIGPLAN '82, Epigrams in Programming">
When someone says "I want a programming language in which
I need only say what I wish done," give him a lollipop.
</quote>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
________________________________________
/ Is this the line for the latest \
| whimsical YUGOSLAVIAN drama which also |
| makes you want to CRY and reconsider |
\ the VIETNAM WAR? /
----------------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-21 09:42 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <7b16b9ba-c8e3-435e-90bf-4b279217c2ac@d12g2000vba.googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #10648 |
On Sep 21, 7:12 pm, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net> wrote: > > I'm not quite that pessimistic. Non-trivial programs are > never trivially easy to write, whatever the language. > Depends what you mean by a trivial program. For instance Mathematica stores everything as symbols. So if you write sqrt(2) * sqrt(2) you always get exactly 2 as the answer. That's quite hard to achieve in most languages, which store values as floating point variables. -- Sudoku solver http://www.malcolmmclean.site11.com/www
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Kleuskes & Moos <kleuske@somewhere.else.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2011-09-21 18:01 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <j5d8pd$u7c$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #10653 |
On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 09:42:41 -0700, Malcolm McLean wrote:
> On Sep 21, 7:12 pm, Kleuskes & Moos <kleu...@somewhere.else.net> wrote:
>>
>> I'm not quite that pessimistic. Non-trivial programs are never
>> trivially easy to write, whatever the language.
>>
> Depends what you mean by a trivial program.
>
> For instance Mathematica stores everything as symbols. So if you write
> sqrt(2) * sqrt(2) you always get exactly 2 as the answer. That's quite
> hard to achieve in most languages, which store values as floating point
> variables.
Yes... I was thinking a bit bigger than that. Like writing Mathematica
or other projects of comparable size and complexity.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
______________________________________
/ Somewhere in Tenafly, New Jersey, a \
| chiropractor is viewing "Leave it to |
\ Beaver"! /
--------------------------------------
\
\
___
{~._.~}
( Y )
()~*~()
(_)-(_)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 10 of 15 — ← Prev page 1 … 8 9 [10] 11 12 … 15 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.c
csiph-web