Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #472229 > unrolled thread
| Started by | RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-10-16 00:24 +0000 |
| Last post | 2018-10-19 16:12 -0400 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 203 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy
Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 00:24 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-15 20:27 -0400
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 00:37 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-10-16 00:46 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 18:05 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-10-16 03:05 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 20:23 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-10-16 03:33 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 08:58 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 09:04 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-10-16 16:39 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-10-16 16:15 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 09:33 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 09:41 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-10-16 16:55 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 10:07 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-10-16 18:40 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 14:14 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 14:30 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-10-17 01:23 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 18:41 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 19:29 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 19:59 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-10-17 03:58 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 21:17 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 10:08 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-17 12:41 -0500
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 19:48 +0200
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-17 13:10 -0500
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Torquemada <whocares@whocares.org> - 2018-10-17 14:13 -0400
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-17 15:09 -0500
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-10-17 20:31 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-18 07:06 -0500
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 05:35 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-10-18 12:41 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Torquemada <whocares@whocares.org> - 2018-10-17 20:10 -0400
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 17:20 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 11:11 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 20:28 +0200
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 11:54 -0700
An array of strings is an array of pointers. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-10-17 12:48 -0700
Re: An array of strings is an array of pointers. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 13:10 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 12:38 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American fr314159@gmail.com - 2018-10-17 11:30 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 12:08 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 12:42 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-10-17 20:00 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 13:25 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-10-17 20:46 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 14:13 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 08:58 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-10-18 17:28 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 11:01 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-10-18 18:16 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-10-18 18:39 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 11:51 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 11:04 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-10-18 17:54 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 11:12 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-10-18 18:25 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-10-18 18:39 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 12:03 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-10-18 19:54 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-10-18 20:02 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 13:24 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-10-18 22:32 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 16:02 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 01:22 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 00:19 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 09:24 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 19:16 +0200
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 10:30 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 22:34 +0200
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 13:51 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-10-19 18:33 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 12:16 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 22:39 +0200
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 11:14 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-10-18 18:46 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 12:06 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American fr314159@gmail.com - 2018-10-17 13:13 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 13:25 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 13:31 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American fr314159@gmail.com - 2018-10-17 13:50 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 15:00 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-10-17 20:50 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-10-18 00:11 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-17 19:48 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 20:12 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 09:35 +0200
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 00:52 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Mel <mel@zzzzz.com> - 2018-10-18 12:16 +0200
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-18 07:11 -0500
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-10-18 12:47 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-18 08:10 -0500
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-10-18 13:28 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 09:04 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 06:38 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 06:22 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 22:48 +0200
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-10-17 09:53 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 03:15 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American fr314159@gmail.com - 2018-10-17 09:37 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-10-17 16:41 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 10:12 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American fr314159@gmail.com - 2018-10-17 10:14 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 10:40 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 11:20 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-10-18 01:29 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 18:53 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 09:00 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 09:15 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 10:33 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-10-17 23:01 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 01:29 +0200
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-10-17 23:37 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-10-18 00:01 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-10-18 00:03 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-10-18 00:23 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-10-18 00:26 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 17:35 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-10-18 00:23 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-10-18 00:26 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-10-18 00:34 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-10-18 01:49 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 19:08 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-10-18 13:04 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 17:05 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> - 2018-10-18 00:20 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2018-10-18 00:25 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 09:45 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 10:11 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 20:49 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-16 06:46 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 16:17 +0200
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-16 12:25 -0400
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 10:05 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-16 15:21 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-16 15:19 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-15 21:17 -0400
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-16 06:39 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-10-15 18:21 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-16 12:18 -0400
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American DFS <nospam@nospam.com> - 2018-10-16 12:28 -0400
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 01:07 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 18:10 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-10-17 01:40 +0000
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 17:42 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-16 06:48 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 17:58 -0700
Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-10-15 18:08 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-15 21:18 -0400
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-10-15 18:29 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-16 12:19 -0400
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Torquemada <whocares@whocares.org> - 2018-10-16 14:12 -0400
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-10-16 11:43 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-16 18:48 -0400
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-16 15:57 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 16:50 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American DFS <nospam@nospam.com> - 2018-10-16 20:16 -0400
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-16 19:02 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 19:12 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 19:36 +0200
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Torquemada <whocares@whocares.org> - 2018-10-17 13:42 -0400
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-17 12:44 -0500
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Torquemada <whocares@whocares.org> - 2018-10-17 13:48 -0400
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-17 12:52 -0500
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 20:03 +0200
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Torquemada <whocares@whocares.org> - 2018-10-17 14:12 -0400
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 20:29 +0200
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-16 15:20 -0700
Hugh could be more succinct, if he tried. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-10-16 15:24 -0700
Hugh could be more succinct, if he tried. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-10-16 15:55 -0700
We're all selling something. Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-10-16 16:11 -0700
We're all selling something. -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> - 2018-10-16 17:14 -0700
Re: We're all selling something. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 17:38 -0700
Re: Hugh could be more succinct, if he tried. chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-17 08:00 -0500
Re: Hugh could be more succinct, if he tried. Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 06:21 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 15:48 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-16 15:17 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-16 06:38 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-16 06:44 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 16:15 +0200
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 08:15 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-16 15:18 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 15:32 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-15 18:13 -0700
Re: Elizabeth Warren 1/1024 Native American Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-16 06:51 -0700
So bigfoot had nailed Ron's great, great, grandmother? Simon bar Sinister <John.H.Gohde@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 07:44 -0700
Re: So bigfoot had nailed Ron's great, great, grandmother? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-16 10:22 -0500
Re: So bigfoot had nailed Ron's great, great, grandmother? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-10-16 15:46 +0000
Re: So bigfoot had nailed Ron's great, great, grandmother? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 09:02 -0700
Re: So bigfoot had nailed Ron's great, great, grandmother? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-16 12:07 -0500
Re: So bigfoot had nailed Ron's great, great, grandmother? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-10-16 18:42 +0000
Re: So bigfoot had nailed Ron's great, great, grandmother? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-16 13:52 -0500
Re: So bigfoot had nailed Ron's great, great, grandmother? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2018-10-16 19:12 +0000
Re: So bigfoot had nailed Ron's great, great, grandmother? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-16 14:41 -0500
Re: So bigfoot had nailed Ron's great, great, grandmother? Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2018-10-16 17:55 -0400
Re: So bigfoot had nailed Ron's great, great, grandmother? Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 12:09 -0700
Re: So bigfoot had nailed Ron's great, great, grandmother? RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 01:14 +0000
Re: So bigfoot had nailed Ron's great, great, grandmother? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2018-10-16 19:03 -0700
Re: So bigfoot had nailed Ron's great, great, grandmother? Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 19:37 +0200
Re: So bigfoot had nailed Ron's great, great, grandmother? DFS <nospam@nospam.com> - 2018-10-19 16:12 -0400
Page 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-16 18:41 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <02caa5cc-93c8-4db1-8b0c-7bf823a3e52e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472430 |
On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 6:23:03 PM UTC-7, owl wrote:
> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 12:40:47 PM UTC-6, owl wrote:
> >> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 10:55:07 AM UTC-6, owl wrote:
> >> >> Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 10:15:22 AM UTC-6, owl wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> ...
> >> >> -------------------------
> >> >> gimme int: 10 <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< I did not type this
> >> >> anon@lowtide:~/code$
> >> >
> >> > I entered '5', then '6' and got:
> >> > I<https://imgur.com/a/C22oHHk>
> >>
> >> That's what it should be, but try it again with 5x and 6, and again
> >> with 5xy and 6. The second time, you won't get the chance to type
> >> the 6, and the 5 gets placed at the int prompt, but then is not printed
> >> after that. I don't know why the 5 is even still there after it gets
> >> picked off by the first %d.
> >
> > I don't like this stuff ;)
> >
> >> anon@lowtide:~/code$ ./sf
> >> gimme int: 5x
> >> gimme char: the int: 5
> >> the char: --->x<---
> >> -------------------------
> >> gimme int: 6
> >> 6
> >> anon@lowtide:~/code$ ./sf
> >> gimme int: 5xy
> >> gimme char: the int: 5
> >> the char: --->x<---
> >> -------------------------
> >> gimme int: 5
> >> anon@lowtide:~/code$
> >
> > One thing I noticed with fgets, I have to allocate 2 'cuz 1 fails...
> >
> > --
> > char grade;
> > printf("Enter your grade: ");
> > fgets(&grade,1,stdin);
> > printf("Your grade is %c\n", grade);
> >
> > (and it whines if I leave off the ampersand, I guess 'cuz it's not an array)
> >
> > webdev$ ./crap
> > Enter your grade: Your grade is
> > --
> >
> > Change that 1 to a 2 and it works, presumably only taking the first character,
> > so it seems to have a similar issue.
> >
>
> fgets reads one less than the size argument.
>
>
> > char grade[2];
> > printf("Enter your grade: ");
> > fgets(grade, 2, stdin);
> > printf("Your grade is %s\n", grade);
> >
> > How would I do this for just a single character?
> >
>
> Use fgetc() or getchar() for single char. But you can loop and get all chars
> and do whatever you want with them. The stream argument can be a file
> opened with fopen(). See the manpages.
>
> Also take a look at the comp.lang.c faq (c-faq.com) and K&R book
> (pdf online somewhere, but it's worth buying a copy).
>
>
> > I haven't tried to research string manipulation much yet but I did see
> > this 'pointer' and 'pointer to a pointer' business:
> >
> > <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9210528/split-string-with-delimiters-in-c>
> >
>
> A pointer is an address in memory. A "string" in C is a pointer to char.
> The string is made up of the char at that starting address, along with all
> following chars, up to and including a terminating '\0'. You have to
> allocate enough memory to hold all of that.
Nobody gets it, only Snit gets it. Gee, imagine Jonas Eklundh trying to pin his phooey on me, no one has ever seen that before <sarcasm>. Jonas Eklundh is the result of the truth that Leninists have been ordered to subvert indoctrinating children. It's not an accident that he is a stupid liberal. After the latest update I no longer want to gouge out my eyeballs from the flicker of the screen.
Did Jonas Eklundh think that was clever? Jonas Eklundh's toned down the hundreds of self obsessed, bullshit threads he used to post but he is surely unchanged in the morality department. He simple uses puppets more to produce those attacks. Heck, just recently he was declaring himself the only "true Linux advocate", and claiming that "advocates" (in mockery-quotes, because he is afraid of them) are trying to rewrite MATE from scratch. Seriously, those of you who troll are not able to restrain MATE anymore.
--
Do not click this link!
http://www.5z8.info/trojan_p4g1zy_how-to-skin-a-gerbil
http://www.5z8.info/--INITIATE-CREDIT-CARD-XFER--_k7s1jt_inject_worm
Jonas Eklundh Communication
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-16 19:29 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e83887af-e582-4ef2-9220-60ab475bed30@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472430 |
On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 7:23:03 PM UTC-6, owl wrote: (snip) > > How would I do this for just a single character? > > > > Use fgetc() or getchar() for single char. But you can loop and get all chars > and do whatever you want with them. The stream argument can be a file > opened with fopen(). See the manpages. > > Also take a look at the comp.lang.c faq (c-faq.com) and K&R book > (pdf online somewhere, but it's worth buying a copy). Nice resource! It may even prevent me from bothering you so much ;) > > I haven't tried to research string manipulation much yet but I did see > > this 'pointer' and 'pointer to a pointer' business: > > > > <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9210528/split-string-with-delimiters-in-c> > > > > A pointer is an address in memory. I figured but I didn’t quite understand the conversation where a pointer to a pointer would be necessary, seems like there’d be another way. > A "string" in C is a pointer to char. I thought a string is an array of characters? Are you saying even a single char is still considered an array (of 1) because char is a fixed, single byte? I’ve read that a char is actually an integer type. > The string is made up of the char at that starting address, along with all > following chars, up to and including a terminating '\0'. You have to > allocate enough memory to hold all of that. Somewhere I read about allowing 1 (the \0 only occupies 1) for termination.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-16 19:59 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <e99eb9d2-6a9b-46da-9bc7-2bd8b4661652@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472439 |
On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 7:29:33 PM UTC-7, Steve Carroll wrote: > On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 7:23:03 PM UTC-6, owl wrote: > > (snip) > > > > How would I do this for just a single character? > > > > > > > Use fgetc() or getchar() for single char. But you can loop and get all chars > > and do whatever you want with them. The stream argument can be a file > > opened with fopen(). See the manpages. > > > > Also take a look at the comp.lang.c faq (c-faq.com) and K&R book > > (pdf online somewhere, but it's worth buying a copy). > > Nice resource! It may even prevent me from bothering you so much ;) > > > > I haven't tried to research string manipulation much yet but I did see > > > this 'pointer' and 'pointer to a pointer' business: > > > > > > <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9210528/split-string-with-delimiters-in-c> > > > > > > > A pointer is an address in memory. > > I figured but I didn’t quite understand the conversation where a pointer to a > pointer would be necessary, seems like there’d be another way. > > > A "string" in C is a pointer to char. > > I thought a string is an array of characters? Are you saying even a single > char is still considered an array (of 1) because char is a fixed, single byte? > I’ve read that a char is actually an integer type. > > > The string is made up of the char at that starting address, along with all > > following chars, up to and including a terminating '\0'. You have to > > allocate enough memory to hold all of that. > > Somewhere I read about allowing 1 (the \0 only occupies 1) for termination. Can you get over it? Oh goodness, that is just tons of hooey. I am an obsessed fanboi of macOS, because that's where all the thrilling modernization is happening. Times change. Maybe the concept of a usenet group is getting a little dated. Sandman has yet to show how Kit Scenarist does anything above the basics on Linux. At one point, Sandman said a legitimate denizen was "obsessing" over him, which was identified as replying to his posts. -- Top Ten Ways Sandman Trolls! http://tinyurl.com/gsleb4p http://comp.os.linux.advocacy.narkive.com/711dskzA/steven-petruzzellis-admits-he-can-not-back-his-claims-about-snit Jonas Eklundh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-17 03:58 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <90a80bab2a.gau@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #472439 |
Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 7:23:03 PM UTC-6, owl wrote: > > (snip) > >> > How would I do this for just a single character? >> > >> >> Use fgetc() or getchar() for single char. But you can loop and get all chars >> and do whatever you want with them. The stream argument can be a file >> opened with fopen(). See the manpages. >> >> Also take a look at the comp.lang.c faq (c-faq.com) and K&R book >> (pdf online somewhere, but it's worth buying a copy). > > Nice resource! It may even prevent me from bothering you so much ;) > >> > I haven't tried to research string manipulation much yet but I did see >> > this 'pointer' and 'pointer to a pointer' business: >> > >> > <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9210528/split-string-with-delimiters-in-c> >> > >> >> A pointer is an address in memory. > > I figured but I didn’t quite understand the conversation where a pointer to a > pointer would be necessary, seems like there’d be another way. > A pointer to pointer to char is analogous to an array of strings. >> A "string" in C is a pointer to char. > > I thought a string is an array of characters? Well, there is no "string" data type in C. Pointers to char are similar to arrays of char, but not the same. Memory for arrays is on the stack and is fixed. Max array size usually has a fairly small limit. > Are you saying even a single > char is still considered an array (of 1) because char is a fixed, single byte? A single-char "string" would need two bytes. (One for the '\0'). > I’ve read that a char is actually an integer type. > sizeof(char) is 1, meaning one byte. But they are cast to int by some functions. <quote> int fgetc(FILE *stream); fgetc() reads the next character from stream and returns it as an unsigned char cast to an int, or EOF on end of file or error. </quote> <quote> int fputc(int c, FILE *stream); fputc() writes the character c, cast to an unsigned char, to stream. </quote> >> The string is made up of the char at that starting address, along with all >> following chars, up to and including a terminating '\0'. You have to >> allocate enough memory to hold all of that. > > Somewhere I read about allowing 1 (the \0 only occupies 1) for termination. > Yes. So for a pointer to char that needs to hold "ABCDE", you would need to allocate 6 bytes. The value of the pointer will be the starting memory address for those bytes that you allocate.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-16 21:17 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ae6c24d7-b5c1-4f3f-9bad-cb0190216eba@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472445 |
On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 8:58:54 PM UTC-7, owl wrote: > Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 7:23:03 PM UTC-6, owl wrote: > > > > (snip) > > > >> > How would I do this for just a single character? > >> > > >> > >> Use fgetc() or getchar() for single char. But you can loop and get all chars > >> and do whatever you want with them. The stream argument can be a file > >> opened with fopen(). See the manpages. > >> > >> Also take a look at the comp.lang.c faq (c-faq.com) and K&R book > >> (pdf online somewhere, but it's worth buying a copy). > > > > Nice resource! It may even prevent me from bothering you so much ;) > > > >> > I haven't tried to research string manipulation much yet but I did see > >> > this 'pointer' and 'pointer to a pointer' business: > >> > > >> > <https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9210528/split-string-with-delimiters-in-c> > >> > > >> > >> A pointer is an address in memory. > > > > I figured but I didn’t quite understand the conversation where a pointer to a > > pointer would be necessary, seems like there’d be another way. > > > > A pointer to pointer to char is analogous to an array of strings. > > > >> A "string" in C is a pointer to char. > > > > I thought a string is an array of characters? > > Well, there is no "string" data type in C. > Pointers to char are similar to arrays of char, but not the same. > Memory for arrays is on the stack and is fixed. Max array size > usually has a fairly small limit. > > > > Are you saying even a single > > char is still considered an array (of 1) because char is a fixed, single byte? > > A single-char "string" would need two bytes. (One for the '\0'). > > > I’ve read that a char is actually an integer type. > > > > sizeof(char) is 1, meaning one byte. But they are cast to int by > some functions. > > <quote> > int fgetc(FILE *stream); > > fgetc() reads the next character from stream and returns it as an > unsigned char cast to an int, or EOF on end of file or error. > </quote> > > <quote> > int fputc(int c, FILE *stream); > > fputc() writes the character c, cast to an unsigned char, to stream. > </quote> > > >> The string is made up of the char at that starting address, along with all > >> following chars, up to and including a terminating '\0'. You have to > >> allocate enough memory to hold all of that. > > > > Somewhere I read about allowing 1 (the \0 only occupies 1) for termination. > > > > Yes. > So for a pointer to char that needs to hold "ABCDE", you would need > to allocate 6 bytes. The value of the pointer will be the starting > memory address for those bytes that you allocate. Ha, ha! I bet Klaus Schadenfreude does not even know what is wrong with Klaus Schadenfreude. By getting an education from 'teachers' like that you get phrases like 'equal rights'. Carried to its ultimate ending, the insistence that it's 'unequal' for a heterosexual male to not wish to marry a child is established. What is your evidence? Turns out Klaus Schadenfreude's constant mentioning of Snit met that definition, so he accused Snit of making that up. With all the bragging Klaus Schadenfreude has done on this topic, the 'Information Architect' does not get how to do this. It takes a couple seconds to click and drag across a range and 'orient' it. -- Top Ten Ways Klaus Schadenfreude Trolls https://youtu.be/iztSc_msHuo http://www.5z8.info/hateminorities_t7l3gt_linked-in-of-sex https://youtu.be/0ZNxaaKD7-c Jonas Eklundh
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-17 10:08 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <bc951934-371a-41fe-8db1-5b316d80c994@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472445 |
On Tuesday, October 16, 2018 at 9:58:54 PM UTC-6, owl wrote: (snip) > A pointer to pointer to char is analogous to an array of strings. Sounds like a two dimensional array, with the pointer to a pointer being the outermost array. > >> A "string" in C is a pointer to char. > > > > I thought a string is an array of characters? > > Well, there is no "string" data type in C. I found that out, it was one of the things that was most surprising. > Pointers to char are similar to arrays of char, but not the same. I saw this from SO: "pointer = address + representation of the pointer's type, array = pointer + optional length of the array, if known" > Memory for arrays is on the stack and is fixed. Max array size > usually has a fairly small limit. > > > > Are you saying even a single > > char is still considered an array (of 1) because char is a fixed, single byte? > > A single-char "string" would need two bytes. (One for the '\0'). OK, so it's not an array when there's just one char (though, you can have an array with 1). > > I’ve read that a char is actually an integer type. > > > > sizeof(char) is 1, meaning one byte. But they are cast to int by > some functions. > > <quote> > int fgetc(FILE *stream); > > fgetc() reads the next character from stream and returns it as an > unsigned char cast to an int, or EOF on end of file or error. > </quote> So, in a strict sense, it's not really type conversion (which is what first springs to my mind). > <quote> > int fputc(int c, FILE *stream); > > fputc() writes the character c, cast to an unsigned char, to stream. > </quote> > > >> The string is made up of the char at that starting address, along with all > >> following chars, up to and including a terminating '\0'. You have to > >> allocate enough memory to hold all of that. > > > > Somewhere I read about allowing 1 (the \0 only occupies 1) for termination. > > > > Yes. > So for a pointer to char that needs to hold "ABCDE", you would need > to allocate 6 bytes. The value of the pointer will be the starting > memory address for those bytes that you allocate. I'm gonna have to play around with it, view the output of the address and the value using the reference/dereference operators. I also saw this strange (to me) statement on SO: "...arrays decay into pointers, meaning that if an expression of type char[] is provided where one of type char* is expected, the compiler automatically converts the array into a pointer to its first element."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-17 12:41 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <rbsesdls4tu4b3ls3p7sgssc50gm1p5omg@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #472494 |
Steve Carroll wrote: > owl wrote: >> >> Well, there is no "string" data type in C. > >I found that out, it was one of the things that was most surprising. Not really, once you understand that "strings" are effectively an array of chars, in any language. What else would they be? C is more "low level" than most languages, of course. Check-out the below ignorance from Dumfsck. Oh, dear, no booleans! How did we survive?!? Sheesh. -- "You worship a language that still has no String data type (null-terminated array of chars... heh!). That didn't have booleans until 25 years after it was introduced?" - VB "programmer" DumFSck, ignorantly attacking C
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-17 19:48 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <875zy0v50i.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #472504 |
chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> writes: > Steve Carroll wrote: > >> owl wrote: >>> >>> Well, there is no "string" data type in C. >> >>I found that out, it was one of the things that was most surprising. > > Not really, once you understand that "strings" are effectively an > array of chars, in any language. What else would they be? C is more > "low level" than most languages, of course. > > Check-out the below ignorance from Dumfsck. Oh, dear, no booleans! > How did we survive?!? Sheesh. Wrong. Of course. Strings, as a class, may or may not be represented as a sequence , or array, of chars. In C they are one of the same. Usually. In higher level languages not. You really are a turd. -- chrisv alias turdv is a turd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-17 13:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <fcuesd1p7j1vv35dbtlbagjsc54mpp48ba@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #472507 |
Hadron Quark wrote: > (snipped, unread) You "own" me, too. -- "I have 10+ solid years of desktop Linux OS failure to support my opinion that ChromeOS will be another desktop Linux OS failure." - another dumb fsck failure
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Torquemada <whocares@whocares.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-17 14:13 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <m1cnv99tx4ex.14h4kk3k4hc09$.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #472513 |
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 13:10:53 -0500, chrisv wrote: > Hadron Quark wrote: > >> (snipped, unread) > > You own me, too. Apparently the entire group owns you turdv.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-17 15:09 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <fu4fsd5pefv1u16prq4dva1kppgecbevit@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #472507 |
I saw that "Hadron Quark" was being polite and reasonable in <87pnw8tolg.fsf@gmail.com>, so I pulled-up the below message and read it. Hadron Quark wrote: >chrisv writes: >> >> "strings" are effectively an array of chars, in any language. >> What else would they be? > >Wrong. Of course. > >Strings, as a class, may or may not be represented as a sequence , or >array, of chars. > >In C they are one of the same. Usually. > >In higher level languages not. Admittedly, I am somewhat out of my depth, here. I have zero experience with "object oriented" languages, for example. But I'm surprised that what I wrote would be declared "wrong". I wasn't claiming that they are normally "represented" or dealt-with like an array of chars (I know that they are not in BASIC, for example). I was claiming that, effectively, that's what strings really are, whether you know it or not. Can someone clarify, without calling me a "turd"? Was I really so "wrong"? -- 'To call something with restrictions "Free" is hypocritical... Stallman uses absurd double talk in his cult BS.' - some thing
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-17 20:31 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <8b00z00b3.a3@rooftop.invalid> |
| In reply to | #472532 |
chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote: > I saw that "Hadron Quark" was being polite and reasonable in > <87pnw8tolg.fsf@gmail.com>, so I pulled-up the below message and read > it. > > Hadron Quark wrote: > >>chrisv writes: >>> >>> "strings" are effectively an array of chars, in any language. >>> What else would they be? >> >>Wrong. Of course. >> >>Strings, as a class, may or may not be represented as a sequence , or >>array, of chars. >> >>In C they are one of the same. Usually. >> >>In higher level languages not. > > Admittedly, I am somewhat out of my depth, here. I have zero > experience with "object oriented" languages, for example. But I'm > surprised that what I wrote would be declared "wrong". > > I wasn't claiming that they are normally "represented" or dealt-with > like an array of chars (I know that they are not in BASIC, for > example). I was claiming that, effectively, that's what strings > really are, whether you know it or not. > > Can someone clarify, without calling me a "turd"? Was I really so > "wrong"? > In C there is no "String" type. A "string" is a zero-terminated collection of chars. If you malloc 1000 bytes for a char pointer, and zero them out, you can manually sprinkle contigous blocks of chars at random locations within that 1000 bytes and, as long as a zero is available at the end of each block, you can then create other char pointers that point into that 1000 bytes to the starting addresses for each block of chars, and print them individually as "strings."
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-18 07:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <eisgsdtsv7m1smbpktc62hfjdghhuno7b1@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #472538 |
owl wrote: > chrisv wrote: >> >> I wasn't claiming that they are normally "represented" or dealt-with >> like an array of chars (I know that they are not in BASIC, for >> example). I was claiming that, effectively, that's what strings >> really are, whether you know it or not. >> >> Can someone clarify, without calling me a "turd"? Was I really so >> "wrong"? > >In C there is no "String" type. A "string" is a zero-terminated >collection of chars. I knew that. (I have written some "substantial" programs in C, years ago.) What I only assumed/figured was that "strings" in other high-level languages would also be a zero-terminated collection of chars, but that this was "hidden" from the programmer. >If you malloc 1000 bytes for a char pointer, >and zero them out, you can manually sprinkle contigous blocks of chars >at random locations within that 1000 bytes and, as long as a zero is >available at the end of each block, you can then create other char >pointers that point into that 1000 bytes to the starting addresses for >each block of chars, and print them individually as "strings." What fun! On a related note, needing to do some basic (no pun intended) string manipulation is what occasionally brings me, to this day, back to Micro$oft QuickBASIC. For me, there is no faster way to pound-out a small program. I've always enjoyed programming. Programming (HP BASIC) was the bulk of my job, at one point of my life. I didn't pursue it as a career, but I've often thought that I should have. Oh well. -- "ALL non-idiots support the use of testing over compile-time warnings to determine if the code functions correctly. (chrisv is) one of the few idiots who thinks otherwise." - Dumfsck, lying shamelessly
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-18 05:35 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <c5b55795-0c0c-43b9-8704-e4bab8188af6@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472611 |
On Thursday, October 18, 2018 at 5:06:15 AM UTC-7, chrisv wrote: > owl wrote: > > > chrisv wrote: > >> > >> I wasn't claiming that they are normally "represented" or dealt-with > >> like an array of chars (I know that they are not in BASIC, for > >> example). I was claiming that, effectively, that's what strings > >> really are, whether you know it or not. > >> > >> Can someone clarify, without calling me a "turd"? Was I really so > >> "wrong"? > > > >In C there is no "String" type. A "string" is a zero-terminated > >collection of chars. > > I knew that. (I have written some "substantial" programs in C, years > ago.) What I only assumed/figured was that "strings" in other > high-level languages would also be a zero-terminated collection of > chars, but that this was "hidden" from the programmer. > > >If you malloc 1000 bytes for a char pointer, > >and zero them out, you can manually sprinkle contigous blocks of chars > >at random locations within that 1000 bytes and, as long as a zero is > >available at the end of each block, you can then create other char > >pointers that point into that 1000 bytes to the starting addresses for > >each block of chars, and print them individually as "strings." > > What fun! > > On a related note, needing to do some basic (no pun intended) string > manipulation is what occasionally brings me, to this day, back to > Micro$oft QuickBASIC. For me, there is no faster way to pound-out a > small program. > > I've always enjoyed programming. Programming (HP BASIC) was the bulk > of my job, at one point of my life. I didn't pursue it as a career, > but I've often thought that I should have. Oh well. > > -- > "ALL non-idiots support the use of testing over compile-time warnings > to determine if the code functions correctly. (chrisv is) one of the > few idiots who thinks otherwise." - Dumfsck, lying shamelessly What is the world coming to when a Flooder Carroll flood post fails to get any attention? Just moronic trolling. And I am giving attention to that trolling. THAT is what the "Flooder Carroll circus" is. Promotion is a wonderful thing and consumer cluelessness is even better. You are five seconds away from being in my kill filter. Time to blame anything but Linux! Android is based on Linux. Even if Flooder Carroll is too stupid to figure that out. Gee, imagine Flooder Carroll trying to pin his codswallop on others, no one has ever seen that before ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Once Jonas Eklundh understood how convincing Flooder Carroll is at playing 'fall guy' he sees this is not quite as crazy as it sounded. -- Top Six Ways Flooder Carroll Trolls!! https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.os.linux.advocacy/smzXrBhsWf4 http://www.5z8.info/hateminorities_t7l3gt_linked-in-of-sex https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.sys.mac.system/6m_7Z7rQ6Hg Jonas Eklundh Communication AB
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "F. Russell" <fr@random.info> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-18 12:41 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <pq9v2j029a1@news1.newsguy.com> |
| In reply to | #472611 |
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 07:06:12 -0500, chrisv wrote: > > What fun! > That's what TRUE programming is all about. But that's also why they create high-level and object-oriented languages and frameworks. Idiots and PHONY programmers must always be shielded from the machine.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Torquemada <whocares@whocares.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-17 20:10 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <85amzllssn1o.5qil5dg1ua8.dlg@40tude.net> |
| In reply to | #472532 |
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 15:09:04 -0500, chrisv wrote: > Admittedly, I am somewhat out of my depth, here. So you are a floater turdv. Hadron was right.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <frelwizzen@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-17 17:20 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <83b8bcba-67d1-4a80-a290-dca9dc755ecc@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472560 |
On Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 5:11:00 PM UTC-7, Torquemada wrote: > On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 15:09:04 -0500, chrisv wrote: > > > > Admittedly, I am somewhat out of my depth, here. > > So you are a floater turdv. > Hadron was right. Several advocates keep responding to Jonas Eklundh Communication. To be clear, I can not chide Steven Petruzzellis for getting angry but, truly, I do not get why he stays here now that he gets what this place is. Steven Petruzzellis is hoping for discussions as found in an IRC venue and support forums will just lead to frustration. All that Jonas Eklundh Communication cares about is that Jonas Eklundh Communication gets to deal out his poorly written flyer and then hang up and giggle about it. The fact that Steven Petruzzellis is a real person on the other end of the phone is what's funny. Jonas Eklundh Communication suffers from neurotic fantasies so, to him, everything, even responses to his idiocy, are "attacks". Who DOESN'T know this? You can say I am a monkey wrench for all I care. From what I've seen (which is none of it lately), it looks like the Wayland ecosystem is breaking down. Given how frequently it is clear that Jonas Eklundh Communication's signature is some misquote of a remark Steven Petruzzellis shared which had been a thrashing on Jonas Eklundh Communication for something he did which was stupid/fallacious/etc... its really a daily gesture of Jonas Eklundh Communication's lingering butthurt for having been so routinely defeated: Jonas Eklundh Communication is undeniably incapable of dealing with this group. The Mack has more streamlined workflows. Meanwhile Linux has no tasks it handles better. Steven Petruzzellis trolled Jonas Eklundh Communication a bit, big fucking deal. Why be a crying asshole about it? -- Best CMS Solution of 2017! http://www.5z8.info/php-start_GPS_tracking-user_f8h9lv_-OPEN-WEBCAM---START-RECORD-- http://www.5z8.info/php-start_GPS_tracking-user_f8h9lv_-OPEN-WEBCAM---START-RECORD-- http://www.5z8.info/myspace-of-sex_q7q7zl_instant-purchase Jonas Eklundh Communication AB
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-17 11:11 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <a38a74bc-2936-4e20-b88f-c780a0bf4ba1@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472504 |
On Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 11:41:13 AM UTC-6, chrisv wrote: > Steve Carroll wrote: > > > owl wrote: > >> > >> Well, there is no "string" data type in C. > > > >I found that out, it was one of the things that was most surprising. > > Not really, once you understand that "strings" are effectively an > array of chars, in any language. That's true (even in JS)... but I've heard people wrongly claim there's an actual 'string' data type in C, all along I've just assumed it has one. > What else would they be? C is more > "low level" than most languages, of course. And when you start looking you realize what that actually means when you begin to write it ;) > Check-out the below ignorance from Dumfsck. Oh, dear, no booleans! > How did we survive?!? Sheesh. Booleanless? The pain, the pain... > -- > "You worship a language that still has no String data type > (null-terminated array of chars... heh!). That didn't have booleans > until 25 years after it was introduced?" - VB "programmer" DumFSck, > ignorantly attacking C I can't pass judgement... until recently, I thought C had a string data type.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Hadron Quark <hadronquark@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-17 20:28 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <87pnw8tolg.fsf@gmail.com> |
| In reply to | #472514 |
Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> writes: > On Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 11:41:13 AM UTC-6, chrisv wrote: >> Steve Carroll wrote: >> >> > owl wrote: >> >> >> >> Well, there is no "string" data type in C. >> > >> >I found that out, it was one of the things that was most surprising. >> >> Not really, once you understand that "strings" are effectively an >> array of chars, in any language. > > That's true (even in JS)... but I've heard people wrongly claim there's > an actual 'string' data type in C, all along I've just assumed it has > one. It's a perilous conversation. People still get confused over a null string and an empty string... > >> What else would they be? C is more >> "low level" than most languages, of course. > > And when you start looking you realize what that actually means when > you begin to write it ;) > >> Check-out the below ignorance from Dumfsck. Oh, dear, no booleans! >> How did we survive?!? Sheesh. > > Booleanless? The pain, the pain... > >> -- >> "You worship a language that still has no String data type >> (null-terminated array of chars... heh!). That didn't have booleans >> until 25 years after it was introduced?" - VB "programmer" DumFSck, >> ignorantly attacking C > > I can't pass judgement... until recently, I thought C had a string > data type. It effectively does : string is tightly defined in ISO C. An array of char units. And of course wchar_t units. Both with a terminator. An array of chars is not in itself a string. It must also be have a trailing zero element : NUL. -- chrisv alias turdv is a turd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-10-17 11:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <1849ca5a-e3d9-4288-b1a3-35fa4335e568@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #472518 |
On Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 12:28:13 PM UTC-6, Hadron Quark wrote: > Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> writes: > > > On Wednesday, October 17, 2018 at 11:41:13 AM UTC-6, chrisv wrote: > >> Steve Carroll wrote: > >> > >> > owl wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Well, there is no "string" data type in C. > >> > > >> >I found that out, it was one of the things that was most surprising. > >> > >> Not really, once you understand that "strings" are effectively an > >> array of chars, in any language. > > > > That's true (even in JS)... but I've heard people wrongly claim there's > > an actual 'string' data type in C, all along I've just assumed it has > > one. > > It's a perilous conversation. People still get confused over a null > string and an empty string... I just read the difference would be the existence of '\0', an empty string has it, a Null string doesn't. But that's a bit confusing if we consider what you've written below, that a string must have a trailing element, which makes sense to me. However, according to what I read, Null strings don't have any elements, not even a trailing element, so it seems odd to refer to one *as* a string when all it has is a memory address. > >> What else would they be? C is more > >> "low level" than most languages, of course. > > > > And when you start looking you realize what that actually means when > > you begin to write it ;) > > > >> Check-out the below ignorance from Dumfsck. Oh, dear, no booleans! > >> How did we survive?!? Sheesh. > > > > Booleanless? The pain, the pain... > > > >> -- > >> "You worship a language that still has no String data type > >> (null-terminated array of chars... heh!). That didn't have booleans > >> until 25 years after it was introduced?" - VB "programmer" DumFSck, > >> ignorantly attacking C > > > > I can't pass judgement... until recently, I thought C had a string > > data type. > > It effectively does : string is tightly defined in ISO C. An array > of char units. And of course wchar_t units. Both with a terminator. > > An array of chars is not in itself a string. It must also be have a > trailing zero element : NUL. > > > -- > chrisv alias turdv is a turd
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 11 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy
csiph-web