Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.c > #57019

Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89?

From	Bartc <bc@freeuk.com>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.c
Subject	Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89?
Date	2015-02-05 21:43 +0000
Organization	A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID	<mb0o4a$eiq$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References	(4 earlier) <mavsi2$ibc$1@dont-email.me> <mavvtm$nr$1@dont-email.me> <mb00je$3nc$1@dont-email.me> <f8cb7bc4-bf48-40c5-ba96-12a2519fe5c5@googlegroups.com> <20150205131245.534@kylheku.com>

Show all headers | View raw

On 05/02/2015 21:24, Kaz Kylheku wrote:
> On 2015-02-05, wpihughes@gmail.com <wpihughes@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thursday, February 5, 2015 at 11:01:46 AM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
>>> To be fair to both of us, modern syntax-colouring editors make both
>>> problems far less likely to hold us up for very long.
>>
>>
>> Modern?   Syntax-colouring editors certainly predate C99.
>>
>> -William Hughes
>>
>> P.S.  nice to see colour spelled correctly
>
> Bullshit; the word comes to us from Latin, via Old French. Both of these
> had it as "color"! There is no need to add any goddamned 'u', let alone
> one that serves absolutely no purpose, since it is *silent*.

I think Old French had it as 'colour'.

But never mind how it came about; English doesn't use phonetic spelling, 
and in the UK, it's spelt 'colour'.

It doesn't matter that some letters are silent or it isn't spelt exactly 
as pronounced (which would make it more like 'culler'). It is necessary 
to use 'colour' (in those regions using British English) to show that 
you're not ignorant.

Try spelling all of 'poor', 'paw', 'pore', 'pour' etc as 'por' and see 
how far you get!

-- 
Bartc

Back to comp.lang.c | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Kamel Biskri <email@domain.com> - 2014-11-28 23:45 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Miles <milesrf@Usenet-News.net> - 2015-02-05 04:40 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-05 11:08 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-05 14:18 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-05 13:52 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-02-05 14:32 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-05 14:55 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2015-02-05 17:07 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-05 14:49 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-05 15:01 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-05 15:31 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-05 15:58 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? wpihughes@gmail.com - 2015-02-05 13:07 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-05 16:18 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? wpihughes@gmail.com - 2015-02-05 13:43 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-05 21:54 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? jak <please@nospam.tnx> - 2015-03-10 10:43 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-05 17:01 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-02-06 15:55 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-02-05 21:24 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? wpihughes@gmail.com - 2015-02-05 13:34 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-05 21:43 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? wpihughes@gmail.com - 2015-02-05 13:58 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-05 22:07 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-02-05 18:11 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-02-06 12:15 +1300
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-06 10:08 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 09:19 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-06 03:34 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-06 08:22 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? guinness.tony@gmail.com - 2015-02-06 03:39 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-02-06 15:45 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-06 08:31 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 13:45 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-06 09:18 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? wpihughes@gmail.com - 2015-02-06 07:08 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 15:15 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? wpihughes@gmail.com - 2015-02-06 07:31 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 15:37 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? wpihughes@gmail.com - 2015-02-06 08:15 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 17:13 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? wpihughes@gmail.com - 2015-02-06 10:48 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-06 16:47 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-02-06 09:52 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-06 12:08 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-02-06 11:32 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-06 12:41 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-07 14:21 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-02-06 18:03 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2015-02-06 13:28 -0700
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-07 14:22 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-06 13:56 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-06 16:55 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-02-06 18:06 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 18:16 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-06 13:34 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 18:44 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-02-06 19:00 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-06 17:44 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-02-07 01:46 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-07 00:20 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-02-07 06:47 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-07 01:26 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-07 01:34 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-02-07 11:59 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-02-07 11:57 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-06 10:51 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 19:05 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-06 11:23 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? wpihughes@gmail.com - 2015-02-06 11:31 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-02-06 15:26 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-02-09 21:19 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Jim Barlow <jim.j.barlow@gmail.com> - 2015-02-09 21:16 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-10 05:36 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-02-10 07:53 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-10 15:08 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-02-10 19:57 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-11 10:19 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-02-11 07:32 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-11 15:32 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-11 14:06 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-11 08:07 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-02-11 07:33 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-11 09:08 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-11 14:29 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-11 16:28 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-11 11:52 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-11 10:37 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Les Cargill <lcargill99@comcast.com> - 2015-02-11 19:02 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-02-12 14:55 +1300
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-11 15:38 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-11 16:09 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Phil Carmody <pc+usenet@asdf.org> - 2015-02-14 18:39 +0200
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-10 10:14 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? glen herrmannsfeldt <gah@ugcs.caltech.edu> - 2015-02-06 17:49 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Greg Martin <greg.at.softsprocket@dot.com> - 2015-02-06 15:59 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-02-06 13:34 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-06 16:58 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-02-09 21:21 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Kaz Kylheku <kaz@kylheku.com> - 2015-02-06 20:54 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-06 21:27 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-02-07 11:31 +1300
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-07 00:22 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-05 21:57 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Lew Pitcher <lew.pitcher@digitalfreehold.ca> - 2015-02-05 10:10 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-05 16:48 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-05 16:02 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-06 10:14 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 09:26 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-06 08:36 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-06 17:20 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2015-02-07 12:05 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-08 12:02 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-05 11:59 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-05 10:47 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2015-02-05 19:38 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-05 13:40 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2015-02-06 10:54 +1300
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2015-02-05 15:27 -0800
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-05 13:04 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-05 14:18 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-05 18:35 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-06 08:47 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2015-02-07 00:32 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2015-02-05 21:53 +0000
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-05 12:17 -0500
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2015-02-06 10:26 +0100
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? "Osmium" <r124c4u102@comcast.net> - 2015-02-05 08:26 -0600
Re: Why the C programming language book was never updated past C89? James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2015-02-06 09:12 -0500

csiph-web