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

Groups > comp.lang.c > #163790

Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF''

Show all headers | View raw

Love reading about history and tradition.
However, the world goes on and not all changes are for the worse.

A couple of cents:


On 12/10/2021 9:45 PM, Dave Dunfield wrote:
> 
> -- sorry - Long --
> 

No worries, some of us can still follow a subject beyond half a dozen 
lines of text.


>>> On 09/12/2021 16:05, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>>> I didn't see any such comments in DECTXT.C.
>> The comment was from my unzip program, caused by the capital C
>> extension. I don't use zip files, so I thought it was a comment in the
>> archive itself.
>> gcc thought is was C++ as well (again the capital C)
>> OK, I didn't see that since I copy&pasted the text from inside the ZIP
>> into a file with lower case '.c'.
>> (I didn't realise .C was still a thing; I hadn't come across that since
>> the very first time I tried a C compiler - Visual C in 1992.)
> 
> Sorry for the confusion. During my "most formative" years, I was mainly
> exposed to systems where filenames were ALWAYS upper case. (Even when the
> likes of "Windows" began allowing lower-case in file names it wasn't
> significant "a.c" was the SAME FILE as "A.C"). When I developed my own
> OSes and file system I followed "the norm". And I tend(ed) to code file
> names "as they really were" (in upper case).

My personal opinion about gcc's (the community?) convention to interpret 
".c" files as C and ".C" files as C++ is that it is somewhat "snob" at 
best. I never used that, although I have found myself developing C++ 
code in ".cc" files and liking that.
That said, I think that case sensitivity in general is a good thing, so 
worth adapting to.

> 
> I wasn't till I began to do some serious work under UNIX that I realized that
> system existed where "case matters". Other issues like one (Unix and most of
> my OSs) and two (CP/M, DOS, Windows etc) character line endings can also be an
> issue.
> 

> 
> 
> On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 8:08:51 PM UTC-5, luser droog wrote:
>> Commiserations. If it helps, GG only reformats the message text in the
>> viewer. It posts to usenet whatever you put in the text box unmolested.
> 
> Thanks! that very helpful to know (being only able to see via GG I could
> not confirm or deny this on my own!).
> 
> A few months ago when I initially attempted to access this group, I wrote
> "RFCGG" (ReFormat C from Google Groups) which helps a LOT (but isn't
> perfect :-) and doesn't actually let you see what was originally posted!
> (Anyone wanting to see it can look at: CSUCLC.ZIP on my site!)
> 

That sounds like a lost cause. Trying to follow GG is useless, since 
they have repeatedly shown that they'd rather see Usenet die completely 
in favor of more profitable platforms - for them, obviously.
Better dump them and adopt some decent newsreader and news server - 
there still are some good ones around, and making use of them may help 
keep them alive as well.

> 
> 
> On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 5:37:43 PM UTC-5, Bart wrote:
>> Also,I've just noticed this comment, after my own includes for these headers:
>> #if 0 // These includes may be needed by some compilers
>> #include <stdlib.h>
>> #include <string.h>
>> #endif>
>> This is odd; what would be the problem with just including them
>> anyway?
> 
> I wrote my compiler back in the 80's, as I've tried to explain. it's
> essentially K&R at it's core and most everything not explicitly prototyped
> defaults to "int" which is the native word-size for the compiler. In other
> words, like many early K&R type setups, you don't NEED many prototypes!
> These files don't exist in all variations of my toolset. But other more
> modern tools complain - hence the #if - my preprocessor will fail if you
> attempt to #include a non-existent file.
> 

All compilers that I know of will fail in front of a non-existing #include.
But still those two are so basic that that construct really is odd in a 
C group.
Not to mention that deprecation of "implicit int" is probably the most 
welcomed change that has happened to C since K&R

> 
> 
> On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 5:59:40 PM UTC-5, Ben Bacarisse wrote:
>> What? Posting links is an everyday occurrence on Usenet. Has been for
>> decades.
> As I've tried to explain, I'm "just back" to usenet after "decades".
> But I have been involved on many other forums (yeah, there are others!) such
> as company sites, local groups... local "for sale" groups for example are bad..
> I don't want to "clutter them up" with pages of detailed descriptions and LOTS
> of high-res (ie: big) photos, and can't give enough description in the few
> short lines they allow... so I put those things on my site, but some groups are
> clearly worried you might dispose of something without going through them.. so
> they remove all URL's and emails! from your posts!
> 

Usenet doesn't do that - because it has no owner :)


> 
> 
> On Thursday, December 9, 2021 at 5:27:05 AM UTC-5, Mark Bluemel wrote:
>> Then we download and run an executable hosted there, that we know nothing of?
>> Can you not see the issues in what you've posted?
> 
> Ahh.. how quickly they forget!
> I've been doing this a LONG time, up till a few years back I was fairly well
> known in certain circles (even a  bit here). I distributed a LOT of code
> (both production and freeware) and have NEVER been accused of or associated
> with the distribution of malware!

As far as I can see, that's not the point. No one is questioning honesty 
or good faith, but.
 From one side the Internet is volatile by nature, and it should be no 
surprise that internet reputation follows the same pattern. And there 
are just too many scammers and spammers out there to expect anyone to 
trust blindly anyone else.
On the other side, there's always the possibility that some system gets 
compromised and one of your executables gets affected without you even 
being aware of it, if only for a few hours.
You know that, we know that. There are good alternatives, better use them.

> 
> While I was hospitalized in 2019-20 my long time domain "dunfield.com" expired
> and was quickly bought up by a company who has kindly contacted me offering to
> rent it back to me! - needless to say, "I declined".

That sucks. Sorry to hear that.

> 
> Which leads to...
> 
> A friend offered me space on his server... he uses some sort of service,
> doesn't have downloads and didn't get a special certificate sold by his
> provider... as a result anything I had for download (and I have quite a bit)
> which contained an executable of any sort was flagged as "possible malware"
> and anyone accessing the site was warned that it contained "bad stuff".
> 
> I've since moved my personal site to a different location, and this no longer
> happens, but hits are cached "all over" so you might see it from time to time.
> Sorry, but there's really nothing I can do!
> 
> 
> 
> Dave Dunfield ::: https://dunfield.themindfactory.com
> Another way to find me: "Daves Old Computers" -> Personal (bottom)

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

Thread

K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Meredith Montgomery <mmontgomery@levado.to> - 2021-11-19 15:57 -0300
  Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-11-19 12:21 -0800
    Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Meredith Montgomery <mmontgomery@levado.to> - 2021-11-19 18:14 -0300
      Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-11-19 14:10 -0800
        Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Meredith Montgomery <mmontgomery@levado.to> - 2021-11-20 17:30 -0300
        Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-11-21 16:01 +0000
    Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2021-11-22 11:23 +0100
      Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-11-22 12:55 -0800
        Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2021-11-23 17:04 +0100
          Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-11-23 09:43 -0800
            Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Philipp Klaus Krause <pkk@spth.de> - 2021-11-24 11:26 +0100
              Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-12-10 01:41 -0800
                Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-12-10 14:40 +0100
  Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Barry Schwarz <schwarzb@delq.com> - 2021-11-19 12:22 -0800
    Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Meredith Montgomery <mmontgomery@levado.to> - 2021-11-19 18:10 -0300
    Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2021-11-20 13:24 +0100
      Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Meredith Montgomery <mmontgomery@levado.to> - 2021-11-20 17:32 -0300
  Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Mark Bluemel <mark.bluemel@gmail.com> - 2021-11-22 00:27 -0800
  Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Mark Bluemel <mark.bluemel@gmail.com> - 2021-11-22 00:34 -0800
    Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-11-22 02:04 -0800
      Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Mark Bluemel <mark.bluemel@gmail.com> - 2021-11-22 02:46 -0800
      Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Malcolm McLean <malcolm.arthur.mclean@gmail.com> - 2021-11-22 21:22 -0800
        Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-11-22 22:03 -0800
          Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2021-11-23 14:52 +0000
  Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-11-26 07:31 -0800
    Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-12-08 07:26 -0800
      Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-12-08 12:16 -0800
        Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-12-08 18:59 -0800
          Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-12-08 19:23 -0800
            Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-12-09 06:30 -0800
              Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-12-09 16:10 +0100
              Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-12-09 16:05 +0000
                Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-12-09 17:41 +0000
                Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-12-09 12:24 -0800
                Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-12-09 22:59 +0000
                Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-12-09 21:26 +0000
                Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-12-09 22:37 +0000
                Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2021-12-09 23:09 +0000
              Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-12-10 01:58 -0800
                Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> - 2021-12-10 10:46 -0800
                Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-12-12 08:21 -0800
          Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2021-12-09 10:31 -0500
            Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' "Chris M. Thomasson" <chris.m.thomasson.1@gmail.com> - 2021-12-09 13:32 -0800
          Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' luser droog <luser.droog@gmail.com> - 2021-12-09 17:08 -0800
            Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-12-10 12:45 -0800
              Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Manfred <noname@add.invalid> - 2021-12-11 19:17 +0100
              Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-12-11 23:19 +0000
              Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> - 2021-12-15 00:31 -0800
      Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Mark Bluemel <mark.bluemel@gmail.com> - 2021-12-09 02:26 -0800
        Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Bart <bc@freeuk.com> - 2021-12-09 11:20 +0000
          Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Dave Dunfield <dave.dunfield@gmail.com> - 2021-12-09 06:50 -0800
  Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2021-12-08 20:00 -0800
  Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' Kaz Kylheku <480-992-1380@kylheku.com> - 2021-12-12 18:55 +0000
    Re: K&R, 2nd edition, Brian's concerns with ``char c = EOF'' James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> - 2021-12-12 14:38 -0500

csiph-web