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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #93976

Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write

From David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c
Subject Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write
Date 2016-09-24 16:06 +0200
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <ns618u$dub$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (17 earlier) <68e53f3a-5fcc-44fc-90c4-bcf8dc3db680@googlegroups.com> <ln7faayyhf.fsf@kst-u.example.com> <kfnh998fuoa.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu> <ns02d8$5cl$1@dont-email.me> <kfn60pme9ki.fsf@x-alumni2.alumni.caltech.edu>

Show all headers | View raw

On 23/09/16 20:48, Tim Rentsch wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> writes:
>
>> On 22/09/16 06:03, Tim Rentsch wrote:
>>> Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> writes:
>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps it's time for the next edition of the C standard to
>>>> mandate 2's-complement [...]
>>>
>>> I see no reason to do so, and in fact would express it more
>>> strongly - it is IMO philosophically wrongheaded.  Most
>>> applications don't care.  Any that do care can easily enforce
>>> that they will compile only on 2's complement implementations.
>>> Obviously it is an advantage for the language to be available
>>> as widely as possible, including on hardware that employs
>>> alternate representation schemes.  Arbitrarily excluding such
>>> hardware would be a poor choice for C, which IIANM is available
>>> on a more diverse range of hardware than any other programming
>>> language.  That is one of C's most important strengths - any
>>> move in a direction that would weaken that should be viewed
>>> with suspicion.
>>
>> In general, I agree with you - the support for a wide range of
>> architectures is a strength of C.  But consider this:
>>
>> 1. There are no architectures that use anything other than two's
>> complement, except for [elaboration]
>>
>> 2. Restricting a future C standard to two's complement would
>> simplify the standard.
>>
>> 3. There are a few programs or types of code that rely on two's
>> complement representation.  If this were standardised, it would be
>> much easier to write such code in a portable way.
>>
>> 4. There are /many/ programs that unknowingly rely on two's complement
>> representation - anything that deals with external binary formats
>> (network protocols, file formats, interfacing to other languages, etc.)
>> will use two's complement.  Programs that use such data are likely to do
>> so in a way that relies on two's complement formats without explicitly
>> stating the requirements.
>
> Point 1 is irrelevant.  Every statement is true, except for the
> exceptions.
>
> Point 2 is a non-argument.  Of course taking things out of
> the language simplifies the language, but that isn't per se
> an argument for removing them, especially in cases like this
> where the text change involved is extremely minor.
>
> Point 3 is either laughable or stupid.  If the word "portable" is
> redefined so it covers a smaller area, then of course it's easier
> to make things that are "portable".  The result is meaningless.
>
> Point 4 is a bicycle training wheels argument - lots of people
> fall over on their bikes, so all bicycles ought to have training
> wheels.  Even better, let's require the training wheels be
> welded to the frame and not removable, to protect the idiots
> who are too dumb to learn to ride a bike.  I am philosophically
> opposed to any language restriction whose primary motiviation
> is to make it easier for stupid people to write programs.
>
>> There is no doubt that placing new restrictions on the hardware for C is
>> not a decision to be taken lightly.  But fixing on two's complement
>> representation has clear advantages (albeit for only a small fraction of
>> code - most code does not care), and no practical real-world
>> disadvantages.  [...]
>
> Your idea of what constitutes a "practical real-world advantage"
> (or disadvantage) seems to be based primarily on how it affects
> you.  I prefer taking a broader view.
>

I think you are wrong on every count here.  Clearly I disagree with each 
of your comments on my points above - otherwise I would not have made 
the points in the first place.

But in general, I believe you are viewing the whole thing from an ivory 
tower perspective.  You know a great deal about the details of the C 
standards, and are willing and able to take those details into account 
in your coding.  You are concerned about portability of code across the 
ranges from the earliest computers with C compilers to the strangest 
hypothetical systems in the future.  That's all marvellous - people with 
your skills and knowledge are important in some lines of work, and it 
makes you an invaluable resource in a newsgroup like this.

But I think it also makes you somewhat out of touch with the average C 
programmer.  You are extraordinarily dismissive of people who simply 
code C for a living, and are happy when their code compiles and the test 
runs work - and who have neither the time, the knowledge, the interest 
or the skills to study the C standards or consider how their code might 
fail when run on a 1970's mainframe or a 2030's 128-bit int machine.  To 
most programmers, the "C standard" is something they have heard of, but 
never seen themselves - very few employers will pay their coders to 
study the standards, so it is only oddballs like me that /enjoy/ such 
details who read them in their free time.  To most programmers, 
"portable C code" is code that can be used on Linux and Windows, or 
which doesn't assume "int" is the same as "long" or that "int" can hold 
a pointer.

Whenever you watch television, whenever you drive your car, whenever you 
use your computer - remember that the huge majority of the software 
around you is written by people that in your words are "stupid people" 
who are "too dumb to ride a bicycle".

There is no way we can stop "stupid people" from writing code.  There is 
no way we can make managers give their programmers the training and the 
time needed for high quality coding.  There is no way we can make 
consumers be willing to pay enough for their products and software so 
that managers can afford to train their programmers.  So is it better to 
think about ways that could make it easier for those programmers to 
produce better code - or is it better to simply dismiss them as idiots 
who should not be let near a computer?

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

Thread

Portable 16 bit binary integer write Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-10 14:23 -0700
  Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2016-09-10 17:11 -0700
  Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-11 07:00 -0700
  Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Richard Damon <Richard@Damon-Family.org> - 2016-09-13 08:41 -0400
    Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-13 06:24 -0700
      Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-13 16:19 +0200
        Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-13 10:20 -0700
          Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-13 11:07 -0700
        Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-13 20:47 -0700
          Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-14 08:24 -0700
            Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-15 12:17 -0700
          Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-15 11:27 +0200
            Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-15 09:03 -0700
              Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-15 11:21 -0700
              Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-15 18:39 +0200
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-15 12:26 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-15 23:12 +0200
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-15 16:17 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-15 18:35 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-16 11:10 +0200
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-16 08:43 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-16 19:59 +0200
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-16 13:34 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-16 16:23 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-16 15:31 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-16 19:06 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-16 23:27 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-17 15:04 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-17 20:35 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-18 00:09 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-18 19:36 +0100
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-18 15:29 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-19 01:20 +0100
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-18 09:48 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-18 19:38 +0200
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-18 15:33 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-18 13:58 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-18 14:15 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-18 23:15 +0100
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-18 15:46 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-19 17:03 +1200
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-19 07:40 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-19 10:54 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-19 10:51 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-19 22:03 +0200
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-19 15:44 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-20 09:02 +0200
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-19 21:12 +0100
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-19 15:58 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-19 09:49 +0200
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-19 02:37 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-19 13:20 +0200
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-19 06:22 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-19 12:46 +0100
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-19 16:20 +0200
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-19 07:32 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-19 11:26 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-19 09:10 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-19 09:33 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-19 11:54 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-19 22:14 +0200
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-19 22:12 +0200
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-19 14:32 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2016-09-19 22:58 -0500
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-20 09:45 +0200
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-20 07:49 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-20 19:43 +0200
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-20 11:15 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-19 22:36 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-22 21:30 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-22 23:58 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-23 19:45 +1200
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-28 08:17 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-28 09:59 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-29 07:59 +1300
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-09-28 19:26 +0000
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-28 12:37 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-10-09 03:46 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-18 13:53 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-21 21:03 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-21 22:23 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-22 08:09 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-23 10:31 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-23 10:56 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-29 08:03 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-30 07:39 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-22 09:49 +0200
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-22 08:34 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-22 17:44 +0100
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-09-22 17:16 +0000
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-22 18:26 +0100
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Melzzzzz <Melzzzzz@zzzzz.com> - 2016-09-22 17:33 +0000
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-23 10:23 +0200
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-23 13:43 +0100
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-23 14:58 +0200
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-22 18:14 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-22 20:28 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-23 00:12 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-22 10:57 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-23 10:18 +0200
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-23 11:48 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-23 15:58 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-29 08:21 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-30 07:42 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-23 23:38 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-24 11:42 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-24 14:13 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-24 23:03 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-25 11:29 +0100
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-25 14:02 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-25 15:17 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-25 16:52 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-25 13:59 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-25 15:13 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-25 15:50 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-28 08:13 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-24 16:06 +0200
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-24 11:53 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-24 14:23 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-25 14:16 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-25 15:18 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-25 16:39 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-25 23:33 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-26 02:08 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-09-26 10:25 +0100
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-26 03:05 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-09-26 11:09 +0100
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-26 09:29 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2016-09-26 17:37 +0100
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write "Chris M. Thomasson" <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-09-26 12:29 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-26 11:12 +0100
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-26 13:19 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-26 18:34 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2016-09-27 06:43 +0000
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-27 00:51 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-27 08:42 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-22 11:40 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-23 10:00 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-23 10:34 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-29 08:13 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-18 00:06 +0200
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-17 17:32 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-18 15:57 +0200
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-17 20:46 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-18 16:08 +0200
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-18 10:03 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-17 23:59 +0200
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-17 16:49 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-18 01:19 +0100
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-18 07:16 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-09-18 10:19 -0400
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2016-09-18 13:26 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2016-09-18 17:04 -0400
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-22 01:21 -0700
            Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-15 12:07 -0700
              Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-16 00:32 +0200
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-15 16:30 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2016-09-15 18:35 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-15 22:00 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-15 22:17 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Ian Collins <ian-news@hotmail.com> - 2016-09-16 18:12 +1200
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-16 00:46 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2016-09-16 10:23 +0100
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write BartC <bc@freeuk.com> - 2016-09-16 10:59 +0100
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-16 04:13 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-16 08:58 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-16 10:16 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2016-09-16 09:11 -0700
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2016-09-16 20:14 +0200
                Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2016-09-16 20:37 -0700
      Re: Portable 16 bit binary integer write supercat@casperkitty.com - 2016-09-13 07:47 -0700

csiph-web