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


Groups > comp.lang.c > #109448

Re: And they say C is obscure

From David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c
Subject Re: And they say C is obscure
Date 2017-05-08 00:59 +0200
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <oeo8m9$7ek$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References (15 earlier) <c49a7f80-5709-4888-80c3-ef1b40f93d75@googlegroups.com> <oen65i$feh$1@dont-email.me> <oenc1i$lng$1@gioia.aioe.org> <oenr5g$odt$1@dont-email.me> <LPLPA.747132$QJ4.658204@fx26.am4>

Show all headers | View raw


On 07/05/17 22:54, bartc wrote:
> On 07/05/2017 20:08, David Brown wrote:
>
>> Most professional programmers who have been in the job for a while have
>> had to deal with code written by some muppet that things their own
>> personal style of C is best.  You know, code that begins with "#define
>> begin {", or "#define FOR(n) for(int i=0; i<(n); ++i)".
>
> That last example looks suspiciously like the example macro I posted
> earlier today (in response to a suggested N-times loop, as I assumed it
> was).
>

Yes indeed.  I don't think you were advocating its use - merely telling 
the other poster that it was possible (which is fair enough).

> I would no longer use such macros (I don't think language deficiencies
> should be fixed with the CPP; it's not powerful enough anyway).

I don't think language "deficiencies" should be "fixed" except by 
changes to the language, /modest/ implementation extensions, or simply 
using a different language.  If you want to use C, use C.  If you want 
to use something else, use that.  There are enough programming languages 
around to choose from if C does not suit your taste or your needs.

For example, if you don't like C's "for" loops, C++ allows alternatives 
like "for (auto i : {1, 2, 3, 4, 5})".  Or you can just pick a 
completely different language.

>
> But examples such as those are fairly innocuous, so it's bit rich
> looking down your nose at them.

No, it is not "a bit rich".  Just because there are worse misuses of the 
pre-processor, does not mean that those two examples are bad!

> Not when you look at a lot of open
> source code and it's so plastered with macros that you can't make head
> or tail of it.

Lots of people write crap code.  When it is published as open source, 
everyone can see the crap code - rather than having it hidden away. 
Nothing about being open source implies quality or lack of quality, or 
good style or bad style.  Without looking in detail, of course, it is 
hard to guess if a macro is a good use of the preprocessor, or a bad misuse.

>
> Here's a macro call in gcc.c I noticed:
>
>   PATFETCH(c);
>
> What's PATFETCH? It's one of these:
>
> # ifndef PATFETCH
> #  ifdef WCHAR
> #   define PATFETCH(c)                          \
>   do {if (p == pend) return REG_EEND;                   \
>     c = (UCHAR_T) *p++;                         \
>     if (translate && (c <= 0xff)) c = (UCHAR_T) translate[c];       \
>   } while (0)
> #  else /* BYTE */
> #   define PATFETCH(c)                          \
>   do {if (p == pend) return REG_EEND;                   \
>     c = (unsigned char) *p++;                       \
>     if (translate) c = (unsigned char) translate[c];            \
>   } while (0)
> #  endif /* WCHAR */
> # endif
>
> Any the wiser? Probably not!

/I/ am none the wiser from that.  But presumably someone has good reason 
for the macro - or at least, /had/ a good reason when it was written. 
These days, a functional macro like that would be best written as an 
inline function - but that was not a possibility in gcc's early days 
(and anyway, a C compiler usually has to be written in slightly old 
language, to avoid chicken-and-egg issues).

>
> There are any number examples of macro used to impose a style on code
> which also serves to make it incomprehensible to everyone else. Is that
> macro call defined as a function, variable, expression, another macro,
> an attribute, a type, or just defined as nothing at all? You have to to
> research every single one to get a picture of what a bit of code is
> actually doing.
>

There is a /huge/ different between a macro that is doing something 
/new/, and one that is giving a new name to standard features, or simply 
hiding normal C code.

> Please just give me the luxury of dealing only with a handful of macros
> such as FOR!
>

Well, of course /you/ can use it.  But I can tell you I'd hate to have 
to see it in real code, and I'd consider it a mark of someone who does 
not understand C.

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


Thread

And they say C is obscure Peabody <waybackNO584SPAM44@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-08 22:59 -0500
  Re: And they say C is obscure Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-04-08 22:17 -0600
    Re: And they say C is obscure Peabody <waybackNO584SPAM44@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-09 07:42 -0500
      Re: And they say C is obscure Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@dqel.com> - 2017-04-09 07:46 -0700
      Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-09 16:47 +0200
      Re: And they say C is obscure James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-09 14:42 -0400
        Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-09 13:25 -0700
          Re: And they say C is obscure James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-09 22:56 -0400
      Re: And they say C is obscure Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-04-09 15:18 -0600
      Re: And they say C is obscure Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2017-04-10 12:57 -0400
    Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-10 14:46 +0000
  Re: And they say C is obscure luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 07:26 -0700
  Re: And they say C is obscure James Kuyper <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-04-09 14:18 -0400
    Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-09 20:53 +0100
    Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-09 13:52 -0700
      Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-14 11:48 +0000
        Re: And they say C is obscure Ken Brody <kenbrody@spamcop.net> - 2017-04-14 13:36 -0400
          Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-20 13:24 +0000
            Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-20 08:05 -0700
              Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-20 15:32 +0000
                Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-20 09:48 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-20 18:00 +0000
                Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-20 11:34 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-20 18:41 +0000
  Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-04-09 13:18 -0700
    Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-09 14:03 -0700
      Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-09 22:56 +0100
        Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-04-10 09:12 +0200
        Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-10 08:22 -0700
          Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-10 18:28 +0100
            Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-10 17:49 +0000
            Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-10 11:50 -0700
              Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-10 20:33 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-10 13:06 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-10 21:48 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-10 22:15 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure Michael Barry <barrym95838@yahoo.com> - 2017-04-10 18:46 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-10 21:46 +0000
                Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-10 23:09 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-11 12:40 +0000
                Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-11 14:15 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-26 10:13 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-26 10:38 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-10 15:23 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-14 11:51 +0000
                Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-14 13:14 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-14 10:42 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-14 19:04 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-04-14 21:43 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-26 11:02 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 19:05 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-04-26 12:02 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-26 21:55 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-27 00:15 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-27 13:23 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-14 18:12 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-14 18:37 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure GOTHIER Nathan <nathan.gothier@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 00:03 +0200
              Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-04-10 14:10 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2017-04-11 08:41 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-11 08:58 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.mclean5@btinternet.com> - 2017-04-11 09:06 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2017-04-11 16:46 +0000
                Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 19:02 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-04-14 11:59 +0000
            Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-26 10:59 -0700
              Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-04-27 21:40 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-02 05:17 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-03 12:50 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-05 01:20 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-05 12:37 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-06 00:16 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 11:49 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 13:16 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 14:10 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Joe Pfeiffer <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> - 2017-05-06 20:23 -0600
                Re: And they say C is obscure David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-06 21:51 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 05:04 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 05:09 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 05:18 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 05:54 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-07 13:48 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 06:13 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-07 15:10 +0200
                Re: And they say C is obscure Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-05-07 16:47 +0200
                Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-07 21:08 +0200
                Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-07 21:54 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-08 00:59 +0200
                Re: And they say C is obscure David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 16:59 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Robert Wessel <robertwessel2@yahoo.com> - 2017-05-07 22:28 -0500
                Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-08 10:16 +0200
                Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 02:41 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 07:36 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-09 10:06 +0000
                Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-09 14:03 +0200
                Re: And they say C is obscure Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-05-09 19:41 +0200
                Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-09 21:35 +0200
                Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-09 20:25 +0000
                Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-10 14:48 +0200
                Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-10 14:23 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-05-10 21:31 +0200
                Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-10 12:45 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure "James R. Kuyper" <jameskuyper@verizon.net> - 2017-05-10 16:49 -0400
                Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-07 08:56 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-08 09:54 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-08 17:32 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-08 18:26 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 02:28 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-09 10:15 +0000
                Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 05:53 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure bartc <bc@freeuk.com> - 2017-05-09 14:15 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 06:55 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-09 14:43 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-09 23:07 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-10 15:32 +0200
                Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-10 11:39 +0000
                Re: And they say C is obscure mark.bluemel@gmail.com - 2017-05-09 06:21 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-11 03:00 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 18:20 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-10 10:06 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 11:11 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-10 12:45 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 05:33 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-10 13:41 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-05-10 09:32 -0400
                Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-10 14:51 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-05-10 10:54 -0400
                Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-10 17:36 +0200
                Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 09:28 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-10 19:12 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure me <crisdunbar@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 11:53 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-10 22:19 +0200
                Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 07:36 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 00:39 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-11 13:30 +0200
                Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-11 13:17 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-11 13:37 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-12 10:39 +0200
                Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-13 09:34 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 09:48 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-13 19:48 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 14:01 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure David Kleinecke <dkleinecke@gmail.com> - 2017-05-13 15:23 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 03:14 -0700
                [OT] Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-14 12:18 +0100
                Re: [OT] Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-14 13:28 +0100
                Re: [OT] Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-14 15:56 +0200
                Re: [OT] Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-14 16:56 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2017-05-14 02:03 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 03:08 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-14 13:44 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-14 16:13 +0200
                Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 08:04 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 08:52 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-14 09:16 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-14 17:48 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-14 14:11 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-14 22:57 +0200
                Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-14 14:10 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-14 15:51 +0200
                Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-14 14:04 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 07:45 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-11 16:45 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure Gareth Owen <gwowen@gmail.com> - 2017-05-11 19:58 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure Ike Naar <ike@iceland.freeshell.org> - 2017-05-11 22:15 +0000
                Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-11 23:24 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2017-05-12 10:50 +0200
                Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-12 09:57 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure Jerry Stuckle <jstucklex@attglobal.net> - 2017-05-10 16:31 -0400
                Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 07:50 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-05-10 09:00 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-11 03:03 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.org> - 2017-05-11 09:02 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-05-12 18:34 +0200
                Re: And they say C is obscure Richard Heathfield <rjh@cpax.org.uk> - 2017-05-12 18:47 +0100
                Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-13 09:03 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-09 10:11 +0000
                Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-09 08:28 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2017-05-09 09:40 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure raltbos@xs4all.nl (Richard Bos) - 2017-05-09 20:26 +0000
                Re: And they say C is obscure fir <profesor.fir@gmail.com> - 2017-05-10 00:20 -0700
                Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-05-08 09:01 -0700
        Re: And they say C is obscure John Bode <jfbode1029@gmail.com> - 2017-04-11 09:15 -0700
          Re: And they say C is obscure supercat@casperkitty.com - 2017-04-11 09:29 -0700
    Re: And they say C is obscure Manfred <noname@invalid.add> - 2017-04-13 16:00 +0200
      Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-16 19:45 -0700
    Re: And they say C is obscure Tim Rentsch <txr@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2017-04-26 11:09 -0700

csiph-web