Michel Bardiaux <mi************ *@peaktime.be> wrote in message news:<G4******* *************@g iganews.com>... Mark Shelor wrote:
OK, Sidney, I am considering it. I can certainly understand the premise
that a group might choose to entertain ONLY those questions that can be
resolved purely by a reading or clarification of (drum roll please) The
Standard. But how utterly boring, and what a waste of talent. It
reduces the newgroups participants to a mere gaggle of lawyers.
I agree 100% with you.
Mark Shelor's question was off-topic, but not for the reasons
mentioned.
To interface C and Perl, it is necessary to *call* functions. The
standard however does not define the stack size, so the behavior of
any function that calls another function is undefined, and therefore
we can not discuss it here. QED.
Yeah, sure. You can predict the behavior of function calls *if* the
stack is known to be big enough, but by the same logic, you can
predict a lot of things if some extras are known. Well, they ain't.
Not in The Standard!
So, read my lips: no...function.. .calls!
We can only discuss things that are happening entirely inside
"main()". Everything else ist verboten!
Heil...
MSG 109  4099 
MSG wrote:
(snip a whole lot of stupidities, the subject line is enough)
goodwin point.
"MSG" <ms*****@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:54******** *************** **@posting.goog le.com... Michel Bardiaux <mi************ *@peaktime.be> wrote in message
news:<G4******* *************@g iganews.com>... Mark Shelor wrote:
OK, Sidney, I am considering it. I can certainly understand the
premise that a group might choose to entertain ONLY those questions that can
be resolved purely by a reading or clarification of (drum roll please)
The Standard. But how utterly boring, and what a waste of talent. It
reduces the newgroups participants to a mere gaggle of lawyers.
I agree 100% with you.
Mark Shelor's question was off-topic, but not for the reasons
mentioned.
To interface C and Perl, it is necessary to *call* functions. The
standard however does not define the stack size,
It cannot define the size of an entity which it does not define.
so the behavior of
any function that calls another function is undefined, and therefore
we can not discuss it here. QED.
Behavior of calling functions is very well defined by the C
standard. Try reading it some time. It's only about $20 for
a copy.
Yeah, sure. You can predict the behavior of function calls *if* the
stack is known to be big enough,
Stack? Stack? What's this 'stack' thingy you speak of? Certainly
not part of the C language.
but by the same logic,
I see no logic in your post, only an invalid premise.
you can
predict a lot of things if some extras are known.
The behavior of a conforming program translated with a conforming
implementation can indeed be predicted. That's what the standard
is all about. That's what its frequent use of terms such as
'shall', 'must', 'requirement', 'constraint', etc. are for.
Well, they ain't.
"Extra" means "in addition to" or "not required".
So of course something 'extra' isn't part of the standard.
Not in The Standard!
The standard is the standard. It's not itself plus something more.
So, read my lips:
Read the standard. Function calling behavior is very well defined.
no...function.. .calls!
Yet folks use them daily. How can that be?
We can only discuss things that are happening entirely inside
"main()".
Absolutely false.
Everything else ist verboten!
I seems that common sense is verboten to you, Herr Clueless!
Heil...
You really are clueless, aren't you? There is absolutely no
requirement that a C implementation use a 'stack' for managing
function calls, or for any other operations. 'Stack' is not
a C concept at all. Try reading the FAQ.
If you're going to troll, at least learn how first.
-Mike
On 10 Feb 2004 00:52:38 -0800, the right honourable ms*****@yahoo.c om
(MSG) wrote: Michel Bardiaux <mi************ *@peaktime.be> wrote in message news:<G4******* *************@g iganews.com>... Mark Shelor wrote:
>
> OK, Sidney, I am considering it. I can certainly understand the premise
> that a group might choose to entertain ONLY those questions that can be
> resolved purely by a reading or clarification of (drum roll please) The
> Standard. But how utterly boring, and what a waste of talent. It
the nameof this group is NOT comp.lang.ANSIS TANDARDC. That fact raises
all kinds of questions...
ANSI C is just one form of a **living** language. Important form, but
nevertheless a moving target.
and, btw. YOU, the reader, keep it moving.
> reduces the newgroups participants to a mere gaggle of lawyers.
I agree 100% with you.
Mark Shelor's question was off-topic, but not for the reasons
mentioned.
To interface C and Perl, it is necessary to *call* functions.
and/or write functions...
The standard however does not define the stack size, so the behavior of
any function that calls another function is undefined, and therefore
we can not discuss it here. QED.
So, read my lips: no...function.. .calls!
that expression obtained a bad smell since Dad Bush...
We can only discuss things that are happening entirely inside
"main()". Everything else ist verboten!
main()is usually very short....
MSG wrote: Michel Bardiaux <mi************ *@peaktime.be> wrote in message Mark Shelor wrote:
OK, Sidney, I am considering it. I can certainly understand
the premise that a group might choose to entertain ONLY those
questions that can be resolved purely by a reading or
clarification of (drum roll please) The Standard. But how
utterly boring, and what a waste of talent. It reduces the
newgroups participants to a mere gaggle of lawyers.
I agree 100% with you.
Mark Shelor's question was off-topic, but not for the reasons
mentioned.
To interface C and Perl, it is necessary to *call* functions.
.... snip nonsense ...
At times the subject of topicality seems too restrictive. In a
silly way you have drawn attention to the problem - without a
standard there is no way to define that of which we speak.
Many off topic things are tolerated even now, for example a thread
about dictionary access, and the various approaches to be taken.
Strictly speaking this is about algorithms, and belongs
elsewhere. Even an Ada vs C thread is running, because it is
largely sane and devoted to factual defined things. (The fact
that it is heavily crossposted also has bearing).
Nobody objects to Chris Toreks expositions of 'why things are'
using examples from machines with different ancestry. (If you
ignore Trollsdale, as you should.)
So much depends on how you present it. Climbing on the table,
beating your hairy breast and shouting "Ugg - me here, me talk" is
not likely to revise any attitudes.
--
Chuck F (cb********@yah oo.com) (cb********@wor ldnet.att.net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home .att.net> USE worldnet address!
Erik <et57 at correos calor dot com> wrote: On 10 Feb 2004 00:52:38 -0800, the right honourable ms*****@yahoo.c om
(MSG) wrote:
the nameof this group is NOT comp.lang.ANSIS TANDARDC.
So? alt.fan.warlord has nothing to do with the game or with Charles
Taylor, either. The topic of a newsgroup is _not_ defined by its name,
since those names are too terse to properly do so.
Normally, the topic of a newsgroup is defined by its charter. However,
comp.lang.c actually predates the invention of charters. Because of
this, its topic is defined by the general opinion of its regulars; and
its regulars have, AFAIK, always been of the opinion that comp.lang.c is
about the C _language_, that is, about ISO, and for historical reasons
K&R, C, _not_ about specific very restricted implementations of it, such
as Borland Visual C++ for M$ Windows XP, 4.02b.
(It's been ISO rather than ANSI for about two and a half decades now,
btw.)
Richard
Dear Herr Wahler:
"Mike Wahler" <mk******@mkwah ler.net> wrote in message news:<ed******* ************@ne wsread1.news.pa s.earthlink.net >... Everything else ist verboten!
I seems that common sense is verboten to you, Herr Clueless!
I'd like to apologize for not taking into account your inability to
recognize fairly obvious sarcasm. I will consider adding "</sarcasm>"
tags to any such postings in the future.
Heil...
You really are clueless, aren't you? There is absolutely no
requirement that a C implementation use a 'stack' for managing
function calls, or for any other operations. 'Stack' is not
a C concept at all. Try reading the FAQ.
There are two (related) meanings of "stack". The point being, the
behavior of function calls is, strictly speaking, undefined (or else
only the implementations that detect stack overflow, instead of
crashing, can be conforming)
If you're going to troll, at least learn how first.
There is a difference between trolling and sarcasm. Vide supra.
On the second thought, I will not use "</sarcasm>" tags, so as to give
the feebleminded plenty of opportunity to expose themselves.
MSG
Erik <et57 at correos calor dot com> wrote in message news:<kk******* *************** **********@4ax. com>... On 10 Feb 2004 00:52:38 -0800, the right honourable ms*****@yahoo.c om
(MSG) wrote:
Michel Bardiaux <mi************ *@peaktime.be> wrote in message news:<G4******* *************@g iganews.com>... Mark Shelor wrote:
>
> OK, Sidney, I am considering it. I can certainly understand the premise
> that a group might choose to entertain ONLY those questions that can be
> resolved purely by a reading or clarification of (drum roll please) The
> Standard. But how utterly boring, and what a waste of talent. It
the nameof this group is NOT comp.lang.ANSIS TANDARDC. That fact raises
all kinds of questions...
ANSI C is just one form of a **living** language. Important form, but
nevertheless a moving target.
and, btw. YOU, the reader, keep it moving.
reduces the newgroups participants to a mere gaggle of lawyers.
I agree 100% with you.
Mark Shelor's question was off-topic, but not for the reasons
mentioned.
To interface C and Perl, it is necessary to *call* functions.
and/or write functions...
[...]
As others' replies reminded me, as a mathematician, I sometimes forget
that "common folks" may be unfamiliar with the concept of proof by
contradiction (*), which is second nature to me.
I was actually going to taking it further, saying, I/O is undefined,
until I remembered that it can be done without function calls:
int main(int argc, char * argv[]) {
return (argc - 1);
}
Cheers,
MSG
(*) In case Herr Wahler still doesn't get it, the faulty premise is
that only those program behaviors that are defined by the standard can
be discussed.
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 13:43:35 GMT, the right honourable rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard Bos) wrote: Erik <et57 at correos calor dot com> wrote:
On 10 Feb 2004 00:52:38 -0800, the right honourable ms*****@yahoo.c om
(MSG) wrote:
the nameof this group is NOT comp.lang.ANSIS TANDARDC.
So? alt.fan.warlord has nothing to do with the game or with Charles
Taylor, either. The topic of a newsgroup is _not_ defined by its name,
since those names are too terse to properly do so.
Normally, the topic of a newsgroup is defined by its charter. However,
comp.lang.c actually predates the invention of charters. Because of
this, its topic is defined by the general opinion of its regulars; and
its regulars have, AFAIK, always been of the opinion that comp.lang.c is
about the C _language_, that is, about ISO, and for historical reasons
K&R, C, _not_ about specific very restricted implementations of it, such
as Borland Visual C++ for M$ Windows XP, 4.02b.
(It's been ISO rather than ANSI for about two and a half decades now,
btw.)
Yes, and nothing has changed much since.
C is still a religion rather than a production tool, to many.
As such, we can recognize religious fundamentalism.
The term Nazi is very much out of order.
But the comparison to religion is as obvious as ever.
We need to guard against fundamentalism in any religion. Because it
narrows our thinking. We live "by the book" in that way, instead of
like free people.
As always, in using tech standards we need to question those standards
at all times. For the solution to the problem is most important.
And standards are and should be a moving target.
From a production programmers standpoint, there is no such thing as a
standard. Only (necessarily imperfect) implementations of it.
In the end, your boss only wants a solution. And you're paid for that.
And that is the ultimate goal of usenet too: generous exchange of
knowledge.
In short: a philosophical view and approach is much better that a
religious one,in my opinion.
And there is no charter. So who determins which questions are
off-topic ? the "regulars" you say.
A problem with the internet is one of identity. We do not know the
regulars, never seen them, never heard them, never met them.
I have great difficulty in trusting unseen people on the net.
Especially trusting them with any power to decide...etc.
(for that, there are the moderated groups. One can ban all one likes
in a mod. group. No problem with that)
No white-robed high-priests for me, thank you.
My rule of thumb is: only trust if you have to. Or, As Ronnie Reagan
once said about the russians: trust but verify.
And I cannot verify on the net.
There is no charter. So don't bark at people who decide by the name of
the news group: comp.lang.c: the C computer language. full stop.
frgr
erik This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion. Similar topics | |
by: Mark Shelor |
last post by:
I've encountered a troublesome inconsistency in the C-language Perl
extension I've written for CPAN (Digest::SHA). The problem involves the
use of a static array within a performance-critical transform function.
When compiling under gcc on my big-endian PowerPC (Mac OS X),
declaring this array as "static" DECREASES the transform throughput by...
|
by: marktang |
last post by:
ONU (Optical Network Unit) is one of the key components for providing high-speed Internet services. Its primary function is to act as an endpoint device located at the user's premises. However, people are often confused as to whether an ONU can Work As a Router. In this blog post, we’ll explore What is ONU, What Is Router, ONU & Router’s main...
|
by: jinu1996 |
last post by:
In today's digital age, having a compelling online presence is paramount for businesses aiming to thrive in a competitive landscape. At the heart of this digital strategy lies an intricately woven tapestry of website design and digital marketing. It's not merely about having a website; it's about crafting an immersive digital experience that...
|
by: Hystou |
last post by:
Overview:
Windows 11 and 10 have less user interface control over operating system update behaviour than previous versions of Windows. In Windows 11 and 10, there is no way to turn off the Windows Update option using the Control Panel or Settings app; it automatically checks for updates and installs any it finds, whether you like it or not. For...
|
by: agi2029 |
last post by:
Let's talk about the concept of autonomous AI software engineers and no-code agents. These AIs are designed to manage the entire lifecycle of a software development project—planning, coding, testing, and deployment—without human intervention. Imagine an AI that can take a project description, break it down, write the code, debug it, and then...
| | |
by: conductexam |
last post by:
I have .net C# application in which I am extracting data from word file and save it in database particularly. To store word all data as it is I am converting the whole word file firstly in HTML and then checking html paragraph one by one.
At the time of converting from word file to html my equations which are in the word document file was convert...
|
by: TSSRALBI |
last post by:
Hello
I'm a network technician in training and I need your help.
I am currently learning how to create and manage the different types of VPNs and I have a question about LAN-to-LAN VPNs.
The last exercise I practiced was to create a LAN-to-LAN VPN between two Pfsense firewalls, by using IPSEC protocols.
I succeeded, with both firewalls in...
|
by: adsilva |
last post by:
A Windows Forms form does not have the event Unload, like VB6. What one acts like?
|
by: muto222 |
last post by:
How can i add a mobile payment intergratation into php mysql website.
|
by: bsmnconsultancy |
last post by:
In today's digital era, a well-designed website is crucial for businesses looking to succeed. Whether you're a small business owner or a large corporation in Toronto, having a strong online presence can significantly impact your brand's success. BSMN Consultancy, a leader in Website Development in Toronto offers valuable insights into creating...
| |
