Re: (part 1) Han from China answers your C questions

[snips]

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:19:37 -0600, Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:

Quote:

>>As far as I know, the C Standard has no mention of multi-threaded
>>programming; it has no mention of how to achieve multi-threaded
>>programming, nor does it mention whether the language or its libraries
>>are suitable for multi-threaded programming. For people who are fond of
>>portable C programming, what's the best way to go about multi-threaded
>>programming?

>
You're on the right newsgroup. The newsgroup comp.std.c is for
ISO-specific C.

Actually, that's wrong. This group is for ISO C; comp.std.c is for
discussing the standard itself.

Quote:

>>I've been reading up on POSIX threads a little, they seem pretty
>>ubiquitous. Would this be the best way to go?

>
POSIX threads is probably your best bet. I can point you in the
direction of a few pirated PDF books if you like.

And this is the point where you enter the killfile.

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

Quote:

[snips]
>
On Wed, 29 Oct 2008 16:19:37 -0600, Borked Pseudo Mailed wrote:
>

Quote:

>>As far as I know, the C Standard has no mention of multi-threaded
>>programming; it has no mention of how to achieve multi-threaded
>>programming, nor does it mention whether the language or its libraries
>>are suitable for multi-threaded programming. For people who are fond of
>>portable C programming, what's the best way to go about multi-threaded
>>programming?

>You're on the right newsgroup. The newsgroup comp.std.c is for
>ISO-specific C.

>
Actually, that's wrong. This group is for ISO C; comp.std.c is for
discussing the standard itself.
>

This is untrue. This group is for discussing whatever we want
Nobody has any authority to dictate what the topics should be
and you are no exception.

Understood?

Quote:

>>I've been reading up on POSIX threads a little, they seem pretty
>>ubiquitous. Would this be the best way to go?

>POSIX threads is probably your best bet. I can point you in the
>direction of a few pirated PDF books if you like.

>
And this is the point where you enter the killfile.
>

I do not care who enters your killfile or not.

But you can post anything, who is in your killfile who
isn't.

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

jacob navia wrote:

Quote:

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

Quote:

>[...]
>Actually, that's wrong. This group is for ISO C; comp.std.c is for
>discussing the standard itself.
>>

>
This is untrue. This group is for discussing whatever we want

An exemplary use of the royal "we."

--
Eric.Sosman@sun.com

Eric Sosman wrote:

Quote:

jacob navia wrote:

Quote:

>Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

Quote:

>>[...]
>>Actually, that's wrong. This group is for ISO C; comp.std.c is for
>>discussing the standard itself.
>>>

>>
>This is untrue. This group is for discussing whatever we want

>
An exemplary use of the royal "we."
>

And a confirmation of what I was saying...

:-)

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

On 31 Oct 2008 at 15:25, jacob navia wrote:

Quote:

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

Quote:

>Actually, that's wrong. This group is for ISO C; comp.std.c is for
>discussing the standard itself.

>
This is untrue. This group is for discussing whatever we want Nobody
has any authority to dictate what the topics should be and you are no
exception.

Absolutely right.

If the "regulars" aren't happy with the rules of the game in clc, they
have a simple solution available to them: set up a moderated newsgroup
according to their rules, and see how popular it turns out to be (I
think I can guess...). Instead of that, they prefer to whine and
complain about the status quo.

jacob navia wrote:

Quote:

Eric Sosman wrote:

Quote:

>jacob navia wrote:

Quote:

>>Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:
>>>[...]
>>>Actually, that's wrong. This group is for ISO C; comp.std.c is for
>>>discussing the standard itself.
>>>>
>>>
>>This is untrue. This group is for discussing whatever we want

>>
> An exemplary use of the royal "we."
>>

>
And a confirmation of what I was saying...

Yes, Your Majesty.

Quote:

:-)

'tain't funny, McGee.

--
Eric.Sosman@sun.com

Antoninus Twink <nospam@nospam.invalidwrote:

Quote:

>
If the "regulars" aren't happy with the rules of the game in clc, they
have a simple solution available to them: set up a moderated newsgroup
according to their rules, and see how popular it turns out to be (I
think I can guess...).

There already is one: comp.lang.c.moderated. In it's day, it was a
*much* more useful group than this one. The rule of thumb was that if
you wanted a bunch of wrong answers quickly, post to comp.lang.c; if you
were willing to wait a little while for correct answers, post to
comp.lang.c.moderated. Unfortunately, the group collapsed under the
weight of all the spam it received -- the moderators weren't able to
keep up.
--
Larry Jones

Oh yeah? You just wait! -- Calvin

[snips]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:25:10 +0100, jacob navia wrote:

Quote:

>>You're on the right newsgroup. The newsgroup comp.std.c is for
>>ISO-specific C.

>>
>Actually, that's wrong. This group is for ISO C; comp.std.c is for
>discussing the standard itself.
>>
>>

This is untrue. This group is for discussing whatever we want Nobody has
any authority to dictate what the topics should be and you are no
exception.

I guess you're blissfully unaware of the entire history of usenet. I'd
recommend a basic education in the relevant concepts.

[snips]

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:25:10 +0100, jacob navia wrote:

Quote:

This is untrue. This group is for discussing whatever we want Nobody has
any authority to dictate what the topics should be and you are no
exception.

Oh, and BTW, since you apparently have nothing more to offer the group
than being an ignorant prick, you're going into the bit bucket, along
with your sock puppet twinkles.

It would be nice, indeed, if the lot of you would grow up and act like
sane, sensible people, but I've little hope of that ever happening.

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

Quote:

[snips]
>
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:25:10 +0100, jacob navia wrote:
>

Quote:

>This is untrue. This group is for discussing whatever we want Nobody has
>any authority to dictate what the topics should be and you are no
>exception.

>
Oh, and BTW, since you apparently have nothing more to offer the group
than being an ignorant prick, you're going into the bit bucket, along
with your sock puppet twinkles.

Great. I hope that I will never hear from you again.

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

Kelsey Bjarnason <kelseyb@lgisp.netwrites:

Quote:

[snips]
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:25:10 +0100, jacob navia wrote:

Quote:

>This is untrue. This group is for discussing whatever we want Nobody has
>any authority to dictate what the topics should be and you are no
>exception.

>
Oh, and BTW, since you apparently have nothing more to offer the group
than being an ignorant prick, you're going into the bit bucket, along
with your sock puppet twinkles.

I don't believe for a moment that "Antoninus Twink" is a sock puppet
of jacob navia. Unfounded accusations of sock puppetry are a favorite
game of the trolls; please don't play it yourself.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

On 2 Nov 2008 at 17:15, jacob navia wrote:

Quote:

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

Quote:

>Oh, and BTW, since you apparently have nothing more to offer the
>group than being an ignorant prick, you're going into the bit bucket,
>along with your sock puppet twinkles.

>
Great. I hope that I will never hear from you again.

Ditto for me.

On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 10:44:57 -0800, Keith Thompson wrote:

Quote:

Kelsey Bjarnason <kelseyb@lgisp.netwrites:

Quote:

>[snips]
>On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:25:10 +0100, jacob navia wrote:

Quote:

>>This is untrue. This group is for discussing whatever we want Nobody
>>has any authority to dictate what the topics should be and you are no
>>exception.

>>
>Oh, and BTW, since you apparently have nothing more to offer the group
>than being an ignorant prick, you're going into the bit bucket, along
>with your sock puppet twinkles.

>
I don't believe for a moment that "Antoninus Twink" is a sock puppet of
jacob navia. Unfounded accusations of sock puppetry are a favorite game
of the trolls; please don't play it yourself.

Technically he may not be, but frankly, he seems fundamentally
indistinguishable in principle.

Whether he is or not, he richly deserves killfiling - which he's now got.

Kelsey Bjarnason <kelseyb@lgisp.netwrites:

Quote:

On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 10:44:57 -0800, Keith Thompson wrote:

Quote:

>Kelsey Bjarnason <kelseyb@lgisp.netwrites:

Quote:

>>[snips]
>>On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:25:10 +0100, jacob navia wrote:
>>>This is untrue. This group is for discussing whatever we want Nobody
>>>has any authority to dictate what the topics should be and you are no
>>>exception.
>>>
>>Oh, and BTW, since you apparently have nothing more to offer the group
>>than being an ignorant prick, you're going into the bit bucket, along
>>with your sock puppet twinkles.

>>
>I don't believe for a moment that "Antoninus Twink" is a sock puppet of
>jacob navia. Unfounded accusations of sock puppetry are a favorite game
>of the trolls; please don't play it yourself.

>
Technically he may not be, but frankly, he seems fundamentally
indistinguishable in principle.
>
Whether he is or not, he richly deserves killfiling - which he's now got.

Ok, so killfile him, but don't make baseless accusations while you're
doing it.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Kelsey Bjarnason wrote:

Quote:

[snips]
>
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:25:10 +0100, jacob navia wrote:

Quote:

This is untrue. This group is for discussing whatever we want
Nobody has any authority to dictate what the topics should be and
you are no exception.

>
I guess you're blissfully unaware of the entire history of usenet.
I'd recommend a basic education in the relevant concepts.

Jacob has fully slipped down and joined the trolls. It's time for
everyone to shut him out completely.

Brian

"Default User" <defaultuserbr@yahoo.comwrites:

Quote:

>Jacob has fully slipped down and joined the trolls. It's time for
>everyone to shut him out completely.

Quote:

>Brian

"... shut him out completely" ?

What country are you from?

--
Chris.

Chris McDonald wrote:

Quote:

"Default User" <defaultuserbr@yahoo.comwrites:
>

Quote:

Jacob has fully slipped down and joined the trolls. It's time for
everyone to shut him out completely.

>

Quote:

Brian

>
"... shut him out completely" ?
>
What country are you from?

Why? Is there something about that phrase that is giving you difficulty?

Brian

In article <0k11u5-rga.ln1@spanky.work.net>,
Kelsey Bjarnason <kelseyb@lgisp.netwrote:

Quote:

>[snips]
>
>On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 16:25:10 +0100, jacob navia wrote:
>

Quote:

>This is untrue. This group is for discussing whatever we want Nobody has
>any authority to dictate what the topics should be and you are no
>exception.

>
>Oh, and BTW, since you apparently have nothing more to offer the group
>than being an ignorant prick, you're going into the bit bucket, along
>with your sock puppet twinkles.
>
>It would be nice, indeed, if the lot of you would grow up and act like
>sane, sensible people, but I've little hope of that ever happening.

If words could maim or kill - or if being killfiled actually caused
bodily harm - we'd be worried (and probably talking to our lawyers).

Luckily for all concerned (but most of all, you), this is not the case.

"Default User" <defaultuserbr@yahoo.comwrites:

Quote:

>Chris McDonald wrote:

Quote:

>"Default User" <defaultuserbr@yahoo.comwrites:
>>

Quote:

Jacob has fully slipped down and joined the trolls. It's time for
everyone to shut him out completely.

>>

Quote:

Brian

>>
>"... shut him out completely" ?
>>
>What country are you from?

Quote:

>Why? Is there something about that phrase that is giving you difficulty?

I understand that meaning of your chosen words, but it appears that
you're from some oppressive regime where, if you don't agree with
someone's comments, then you can just "shut them out".

We don't see many such posters on c.l.c, usually most posters are from
countries where freedom of speech is valued and, if we don't agree with
someone's comments, then we exercise our choice to ignore them.

So, what country are you from?

--
Chris.

In article <genm6i$1ji$1@enyo.uwa.edu.au>
Chris McDonald <chris@csse.uwa.edu.auwrites:

Quote:

>"Default User" <defaultuserbr@yahoo.comwrites:
>

Quote:

>>Chris McDonald wrote:

>

Quote:

>>"Default User" <defaultuserbr@yahoo.comwrites:
>>>
>Jacob has fully slipped down and joined the trolls. It's time for
>everyone to shut him out completely.
>>>
>Brian
>>>
>>"... shut him out completely" ?
>>>
>>What country are you from?

>

Quote:

>>Why? Is there something about that phrase that is giving you difficulty?

>
>
>I understand that meaning of your chosen words, but it appears that
>you're from some oppressive regime where, if you don't agree with
>someone's comments, then you can just "shut them out".
>
>We don't see many such posters on c.l.c, usually most posters are from
>countries where freedom of speech is valued and, if we don't agree with
>someone's comments, then we exercise our choice to ignore them.

FWIW, I took his "shut him out completely" to mean exactly the same
as "ignore," "tune out," "pay no attention to the man behind the
curtain" or whatever your prefered idiom is.

--
Drew Lawson | Broke my mind
| Had no spare
|

On 3 Nov 2008 at 20:16, Chris McDonald wrote:

Quote:

>>"Default User" <defaultuserbr@yahoo.comwrites:
>Jacob has fully slipped down and joined the trolls. It's time for
>everyone to shut him out completely.

>
I understand that meaning of your chosen words, but it appears that
you're from some oppressive regime where, if you don't agree with
someone's comments, then you can just "shut them out".

Welcome to clc. Enjoy your stay.

Chris McDonald wrote:

Quote:

"Default User" <defaultuserbr@yahoo.comwrites:
>

Quote:

>Chris McDonald wrote:

>

Quote:

>>"Default User" <defaultuserbr@yahoo.comwrites:
>>>
>>>Jacob has fully slipped down and joined the trolls. It's time for
>>>everyone to shut him out completely.
>>>Brian
>>"... shut him out completely" ?
>>>
>>What country are you from?

>

Quote:

>Why? Is there something about that phrase that is giving you difficulty?

>
>
I understand that meaning of your chosen words, but it appears that
you're from some oppressive regime where, if you don't agree with
someone's comments, then you can just "shut them out".
>
We don't see many such posters on c.l.c, usually most posters are from
countries where freedom of speech is valued and, if we don't agree with
someone's comments, then we exercise our choice to ignore them.
>
So, what country are you from?

Dunno about you, but I'm from a country whose chartering
document guarantees something called "freedom of association,"
which legal tradition has interpreted as both the freedom to
associate and the freedom to decline to associate. In other
words, I come from a country where killfiles are legal.

--
Eric.Sosman@sun.com

Antoninus Twink <nospam@nospam.invalidwrites:

Quote:

>On 3 Nov 2008 at 20:16, Chris McDonald wrote:

Quote:

>>>"Default User" <defaultuserbr@yahoo.comwrites:
>>Jacob has fully slipped down and joined the trolls. It's time for
>>everyone to shut him out completely.

>>
>I understand that meaning of your chosen words, but it appears that
>you're from some oppressive regime where, if you don't agree with
>someone's comments, then you can just "shut them out".

Quote:

>Welcome to clc. Enjoy your stay.

Thanks; the 20 years that I've been here, already, have been reasonable.

--
Chris.

Eric Sosman <Eric.Sosman@sun.comwrites:

Quote:

>Chris McDonald wrote:

Quote:

>....
>>
>We don't see many such posters on c.l.c, usually most posters are from
>countries where freedom of speech is valued and, if we don't agree with
>someone's comments, then we exercise our choice to ignore them.
>>
>So, what country are you from?

Quote:

Dunno about you, but I'm from a country whose chartering
>document guarantees something called "freedom of association,"
>which legal tradition has interpreted as both the freedom to
>associate and the freedom to decline to associate. In other
>words, I come from a country where killfiles are legal.

Me too; that's why I said "...our choice to ignore them",
but I wouldn't describe that as the OP's "...to shut them out",
which I interpreted as "...how can we prevent this fellow from posting?".

--
Chris.

On 3 Nov 2008 at 20:46, Eric Sosman wrote:

Quote:

Chris McDonald wrote:

Quote:

>We don't see many such posters on c.l.c, usually most posters are from
>countries where freedom of speech is valued and, if we don't agree with
>someone's comments, then we exercise our choice to ignore them.

>
Dunno about you, but I'm from a country whose chartering document
guarantees something called "freedom of association," which legal
tradition has interpreted as both the freedom to associate and the
freedom to decline to associate. In other words, I come from a
country where killfiles are legal.

Yeah sure, Eric, and plenty of people in this country take full
advantage of that freedom to shut out people who disagree with them -
they bury their head in the sand and never let their prejudices be
challenged by reasoned discussion. GREAT. That's obviously a really
healthy way to live.

Chris McDonald <chris@csse.uwa.edu.auwrites:

Quote:

Eric Sosman <Eric.Sosman@sun.comwrites:

Quote:

>>Chris McDonald wrote:

Quote:

>>....
>>>
>>We don't see many such posters on c.l.c, usually most posters are from
>>countries where freedom of speech is valued and, if we don't agree with
>>someone's comments, then we exercise our choice to ignore them.
>>>
>>So, what country are you from?

>

Quote:

> Dunno about you, but I'm from a country whose chartering
>>document guarantees something called "freedom of association,"
>>which legal tradition has interpreted as both the freedom to
>>associate and the freedom to decline to associate. In other
>>words, I come from a country where killfiles are legal.

>
Me too; that's why I said "...our choice to ignore them",
but I wouldn't describe that as the OP's "...to shut them out",
which I interpreted as "...how can we prevent this fellow from posting?".

I believe you've misunderstood. I don't believe that the previous
poster said or implied that we should prevent jacob from posting --
and if that *is* what he meant, I'll be among the first to oppose any
attempts to do so. But ignoring someone, and even encouraging others
to do so, is an exercise of freedom, not a violation of it.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst-u@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Chris McDonald wrote:

Quote:

"Default User" <defaultuserbr@yahoo.comwrites:
>

Quote:

Chris McDonald wrote:

Quote:

"... shut him out completely" ?
>
What country are you from?

>

Quote:

Why? Is there something about that phrase that is giving you
difficulty?

>
>
I understand that meaning of your chosen words, but it appears that
you're from some oppressive regime where, if you don't agree with
someone's comments, then you can just "shut them out".

What? I'm the one that doesn't understand YOUR meaning now.

Quote:

We don't see many such posters on c.l.c, usually most posters are from
countries where freedom of speech is valued and, if we don't agree
with someone's comments, then we exercise our choice to ignore them.

So, you apparently did not understand what the phrase meant, after all.
What I meant was specifically for people to stop feeding the troll.
Don't reply to his attempts to cause dissention in the newsgroup.

What did you THINK I meant? What mechanism did you think I was
suggesting besides ignoring him? Kicking his dog?

Brian

In article <lniqr4wlo9.fsf@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson <kst-u@mib.orgwrote:
....

Quote:

>I believe you've misunderstood. I don't believe that the previous
>poster said or implied that we should prevent jacob from posting --
>and if that *is* what he meant, I'll be among the first to oppose any
>attempts to do so. But ignoring someone, and even encouraging others
>to do so, is an exercise of freedom, not a violation of it.

True up to a point. The problem is that when you have set yourself up
as the government (as, clearly, the little cabal of you, RH, and about 4
others have), then further restrictions should apply.

You can deny this all you want (as I fully expect you to do), but the
facts remain.

"Default User" <defaultuserbr@yahoo.comwrites:

Quote:

>So, you apparently did not understand what the phrase meant, after all.
>What I meant was specifically for people to stop feeding the troll.
>Don't reply to his attempts to cause dissention in the newsgroup.

Quote:

>What did you THINK I meant? What mechanism did you think I was
>suggesting besides ignoring him? Kicking his dog?

Yes, I misunderstood;
I've not previously seen the phrase "... shut him out completely"
used to mean "stop feeding the troll".
I've only previously seen it used to mean worse than kicking his dog.

(dissention? dissent?)

--
Chris.

Chris McDonald wrote:

Quote:

"Default User" <defaultuserbr@yahoo.comwrites:
>

Quote:

So, you apparently did not understand what the phrase meant, after
all. What I meant was specifically for people to stop feeding the
troll. Don't reply to his attempts to cause dissention in the
newsgroup.

>

Quote:

What did you THINK I meant? What mechanism did you think I was
suggesting besides ignoring him? Kicking his dog?

>
>
Yes, I misunderstood;

Fair enough.

Quote:

I've not previously seen the phrase "... shut him out completely"
used to mean "stop feeding the troll".
I've only previously seen it used to mean worse than kicking his dog.

To avoid any confusion, I meant that people should stop indulging
Jacob's increasingly antagonistic diatribes.

Brian

Default User said:

<snip>

Quote:

To avoid any confusion, I meant that people should stop indulging
Jacob's increasingly antagonistic diatribes.

If you look back a few years, I think you'll find they aren't actually
increasingly antagonistic. They've been about this antagonistic for quite
a few years.

Observation suggests that the principal effect of these diatribes tends to
be to wear thin the patience of even the most gentle clc-ers, who
eventually succumb to the temptation to filter Mr Navia's articles out.
This means that he need no longer be concerned about their objections to
his using this newsgroup as his own personal marketing channel for his
not-quite-C variant.

Hanlon's Razor suggests that we should not ascribe to malice that which can
adequately be explained by incompetence. In this situation, however, I am
not convinced that mere incompetence is a sufficiently compelling
explanation.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

Richard Heathfield <rjh@see.sig.invalidwrites:

Quote:

Default User said:
>
<snip>
>

Quote:

To avoid any confusion, I meant that people should stop indulging
Jacob's increasingly antagonistic diatribes.

>
If you look back a few years, I think you'll find they aren't actually
increasingly antagonistic. They've been about this antagonistic for quite
a few years.

I'm not sure if I agree or disagree that Mr. Navia's comments have
been increasingly antagonistic, but either way, I suggest that it's
in everyone's best interests to refrain from making any ad hominem
remarks towards Mr. Navia. It's almost always better to respond to
the posting, not the poster, and I believe that this guideline is
better followed more in this case rather than less.

Quote:

Observation suggests that the principal effect of these diatribes tends to
be to wear thin the patience of even the most gentle clc-ers, who
eventually succumb to the temptation to filter Mr Navia's articles out.
This means that he need no longer be concerned about their objections to
his using this newsgroup as his own personal marketing channel for his
not-quite-C variant.
>
Hanlon's Razor suggests that we should not ascribe to malice that which can
adequately be explained by incompetence. In this situation, however, I am
not convinced that mere incompetence is a sufficiently compelling
explanation.

I believe some of what's been observed is a reaction to baiting
messages (or responses) posted relatively often by various people,
including some regular contributors. I don't know which messages
might be intended as baiting, but it's definitely been my impression
reading them that some very likely are baiting in their effect.
I believe optimistically that Mr. Navia would prefer to act civilly
rather than uncivilly; whatever may have transpired in the past,
wouldn't it be nice to run a suitably long-term trial to see if
that hypothesis holds now?

Tim Rentsch said:

<snip>

Quote:

I believe optimistically that Mr. Navia would prefer to act civilly
rather than uncivilly; whatever may have transpired in the past,
wouldn't it be nice to run a suitably long-term trial to see if
that hypothesis holds now?

I've tried that before, and it didn't work. But I'm perfectly willing to
try it again.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

Tim Rentsch wrote:

Quote:

[...]
I believe optimistically that Mr. Navia would prefer to act civilly
rather than uncivilly; whatever may have transpired in the past,
wouldn't it be nice to run a suitably long-term trial to see if
that hypothesis holds now?

I've conducted just such a trial, giving the experiment several
years. Although unhappy with the conclusion, I'm satisfied as to
its accuracy.

--
Eric.Sosman@sun.com

Re: (part 1) Han from China answers your C questions

re: Re: (part 1) Han from China answers your C questions

re: Re: (part 1) Han from China answers your C questions

re: Re: (part 1) Han from China answers your C questions

re: Re: (part 1) Han from China answers your C questions

re: Re: (part 1) Han from China answers your C questions

re: Re: (part 1) Han from China answers your C questions

re: Re: (part 1) Han from China answers your C questions

re: Re: (part 1) Han from China answers your C questions

re: Re: (part 1) Han from China answers your C questions

re: Re: (part 1) Han from China answers your C questions

re: Re: (part 1) Han from China answers your C questions

re: Re: (part 1) Han from China answers your C questions

re: Re: (part 1) Han from China answers your C questions

re: Re: (part 1) Han from China answers your C questions

re: Re: (part 1) Han from China answers your C questions

re: Re: (part 1) Han from China answers your C questions

re: Re: (part 1) Han from China answers your C questions

re: Re: (part 1) Han from China answers your C questions

re: Re: (part 1) Han from China answers your C questions

re: Re: (part 1) Han from China answers your C questions

re: Re: (part 1) Han from China answers your C questions

re: Re: (part 1) Han from China answers your C questions

re: Re: (part 1) Han from China answers your C questions

re: Re: (part 1) Han from China answers your C questions

re: Re: (part 1) Han from China answers your C questions

re: Re: (part 1) Han from China answers your C questions

re: Re: (part 1) Han from China answers your C questions

re: Re: (part 1) Han from China answers your C questions

re: Re: (part 1) Han from China answers your C questions

re: Re: (part 1) Han from China answers your C questions

re: Re: (part 1) Han from China answers your C questions

re: Re: (part 1) Han from China answers your C questions

re: Re: (part 1) Han from China answers your C questions

Similar C / C++ bytes

/bytes/development

/bytes/it

/bytes/about