microsoft visual c++

[paz]

Hi,

Does anybody know how to start new C project with microsoft visual c++?

I've created a file, but Tools-Run is inActive.

How can I make it Active?

[Richard Heathfield]

Hallvard B Furuseth said:

Richard Heathfield writes:

>Then it's well-misunderstood. I'm not interested in liking or
disliking Jacob Navia, and I'm not interested in his opinion of
me. What I'm interested in is people not being misled by incorrect
information.

Then give correct information instead.

I did.

I haven't browsed more than a
fraction of that thread, but the OP was clearly not thinking of "the ISO
C standard", just "C",

The one defines the other.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

[Hallvard B Furuseth]

Richard Heathfield writes:

>Hallvard B Furuseth said:

>>Richard Heathfield writes:

>>Then it's well-misunderstood. I'm not interested in liking or
disliking Jacob Navia, and I'm not interested in his opinion of
me. What I'm interested in is people not being misled by incorrect
information .

Then give correct information instead.

I did.

You are right for the first message, I've read that thread quite out of
order. Sorry about that. What you didn't do was answer the OP's
question. He made some assumptions - about the implementation he was
using, obviously, you could have said something about those particular
assumptions.

OTOH, your following "C&V please" responses did not give information at
all. The OP even had to post a followup just to learn what you meant.

>I haven't browsed more than a fraction of that thread, but the OP was
clearly not thinking of "the ISO C standard", just "C",

The one defines the other.

In your mind, obviously. In the OP's and several others' minds,
obviously "C means something wider than that, or they don't have the
standard anyway.

BTW, I guess my mention of comp.unix.progr ammer was wrong. After all,
there is a definition of Unix too, it's even trademarked, so one
shouldn't refer to comp.unix.progr ammer for anything which not the
trademarked Unix, right?

--
Hallvard

[Richard Heathfield]

Hallvard B Furuseth said:

Richard Heathfield writes:

>>Hallvard B Furuseth said:

>>>Richard Heathfield writes:
Then it's well-misunderstood. I'm not interested in liking or
disliking Jacob Navia, and I'm not interested in his opinion of
me. What I'm interested in is people not being misled by incorrect
informatio n.

Then give correct information instead.

I did.

You are right for the first message, I've read that thread quite out of
order. Sorry about that.

Your apology is accepted.

What you didn't do was answer the OP's question.

That is because the OP's question didn't really have a C answer, except
perhaps "The C Standard doesn't require your implementation to have a bss
or a stack", which is what I said.

He made some assumptions - about the implementation he was
using, obviously, you could have said something about those particular
assumptions.

I did - by saying "The C Standard doesn't require your implementation to
have a bss or a stack" - i.e. I indicated that he was making incorrect
assumptions.

OTOH, your following "C&V please" responses did not give information at
all.

"C&V please" is a request for information, not an offer of information. Mr
Navia had claimed that the OP was correct to think that "it is stack", and
I was asking Mr Navia to give supporting evidence for his claim.

The OP even had to post a followup just to learn what you meant.

Fine, but I was asking Mr Navia, not the OP, to provide that supporting
information.

>>I haven't browsed more than a fraction of that thread, but the OP was
clearly not thinking of "the ISO C standard", just "C",

The one defines the other.

In your mind, obviously. In the OP's and several others' minds,
obviously "C means something wider than that,

Neither their view of what C is, nor mine, is normative.

or they don't have the standard anyway.

<shrugIt's available.

BTW, I guess my mention of comp.unix.progr ammer was wrong. After all,
there is a definition of Unix too, it's even trademarked, so one
shouldn't refer to comp.unix.progr ammer for anything which not the
trademarked Unix, right?

No idea. That's a question for comp.unix.progr ammer, not comp.lang.c.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

[CBFalconer]

Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:

Richard Heathfield writes:

>Then it's well-misunderstood. I'm not interested in liking or
disliking Jacob Navia, and I'm not interested in his opinion of
me. What I'm interested in is people not being misled by incorrect
information.

Then give correct information instead. I haven't browsed more than
a fraction of that thread, but the OP was clearly not thinking of
"the ISO C standard", just "C", there is no reason to assume the OP
there learned anything at all from your messages. He even had to
ask in which way you were being obnoxious just to understand your
reply.

What do you think defines "C". So you have your own private C
standard to which you refer? Is it accepted and approved by the
various worldwide standard bodies? The only document I can think
of that meets those criteria is the ISO C standrd, commonly known
as C99.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home .att.net>

[Yevgen Muntyan]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Yevgen Muntyan said:

<snip>

>>Here Richard replied to post by Jacob Navia (naturally, Richard
Heathfield could not leave last word to Jacob),

I'm happy for Mr Navia to have the last word, if it's a *correct* last word.

I believe your reply about Venus and Earth actually confirmed that
Jacob was right (he said something like "If I said ... then you would
...."), i.e. you didn't let him have last word even though it was
correct.

>>Richard, could you indeed comment on this? Or on how a link to
some web page is as good as directing OP to an appropriate newsgroup
so that zillions of experts may correct possible mistakes for the
peace on Earth? The latter is a question to kind wise Keith Thompson
too, by the way.

I explained my reasons for recommending a Web page rather than a newsgroup
at the time I made the recommendation.

You explained your reasons for recommending web page, but you didn't
tell why/if a link to some web page is as good as directing OP to an
appropriate newsgroup so that zillions of experts may correct possible
mistakes (this is the most popular excuse for "off-topic here, go to
foo.blah.someth ing, and I won't tell anything" stuff).

>>Really, guys, you want to kill off-topic posts, fine. You keep
repeating stuff about appropriate forums and "experts", fine. But
be consistent! When you are fighting Jacob Navia, it's well understood:
you don't like each other, you offend each other, normal relationships.

Then it's well-misunderstood. I'm not interested in liking or disliking
Jacob Navia, and I'm not interested in his opinion of me. What I'm
interested in is people not being misled by incorrect information.

Oh yeah, your replies to Jacob's post show exactly this, that you
care only about the truth. Like, if Jacob says that he's not in
"heathfield something club", then you want to prevent people from
being misled by this Jacob's statement.

That's why I post corrections when I notice people making mistakes -
and it's why I apologise if I discover that I myself have given
incorrect information. It has nothing to do with likes or dislikes.

What you're doing is way too often something in the range from feeding
trolls to simply being a jerk. It'd be silly to ask you not to be like
that, of course, but maybe you could at least cool a bit your replies?

Yevgen

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <gQGch.2258$Qa7 .359@trnddc03>,
Yevgen Muntyan <mu************ ****@tamu.eduwr ote:

>Richard Heathfield wrote:

>Yevgen Muntyan said:

<snip>

>>>Here Richard replied to post by Jacob Navia (naturally, Richard
Heathfield could not leave last word to Jacob),

I'm happy for Mr Navia to have the last word, if it's a *correct* last word.

I believe your reply about Venus and Earth actually confirmed that
Jacob was right (he said something like "If I said ... then you would
..."), i.e. you didn't let him have last word even though it was
correct.

You are absolutely right, of course. (Now, let's count the minutes
until KT posts that I am not your friend...)

Actually, there's a lot to be said for the notion that the definition of
"East" is the direction of the rising sun - so if a planet spins in the
opposite direction of the Earth, then the definition of "East" changes
accordingly.

And, to any of the jobworths here who would say that sort of re-definition
isn't valid, well, I think we can all agree that much worse
re-definition goes on here all the time (starting with the nutsoid
contention that C == ISO C == C99 (oops, I mean, C89, oops, er, ...))
....

>Oh yeah, your replies to Jacob's post show exactly this, that you
care only about the truth. Like, if Jacob says that he's not in
"heathfield something club", then you want to prevent people from
being misled by this Jacob's statement.

Ego just wouldn't allow letting that statement go unchallenged.
Even though it is, of course, dead on.

>What you're doing is way too often something in the range from feeding
trolls to simply being a jerk.

Keep in mind that it has been pretty well established by now that "RH"
is just a pimply 17 year old (probably using Daddy's computer w/o
permission).

[Hallvard B Furuseth]

CBFalconer writes:

Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:

>Then give correct information instead. I haven't browsed more than
a fraction of that thread, but the OP was clearly not thinking of
"the ISO C standard", just "C", there is no reason to assume the OP
there learned anything at all from your messages. He even had to
ask in which way you were being obnoxious just to understand your
reply.

What do you think defines "C". So you have your own private C
standard to which you refer? (...)

C has a standard which defines the offical language. Fine. But as for
"C", as a word, as something to discuss for programming: Well, a C
program is something which is intended to be accepted by a C compiler, I
guess. I.e. this is a C program:

void main() {}

It's a C program which uses a compiler extension which should be
taken out and shot, but still a C program.

Remove the 'v' in void and I'd still call it a C program. With a fatal
typo.

--
Hallvard

[Richard Heathfield]

Yevgen Muntyan said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>Yevgen Muntyan said:

<snip>

>>>Here Richard replied to post by Jacob Navia (naturally, Richard
Heathfield could not leave last word to Jacob),

I'm happy for Mr Navia to have the last word, if it's a *correct* last
word.

I believe your reply about Venus and Earth actually confirmed that
Jacob was right (he said something like "If I said ... then you would
..."), i.e. you didn't let him have last word even though it was
correct.

But it wasn't correct.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.

[pete]

Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:

void main() {}

It's a C program which uses a compiler extension which should be
taken out and shot, but still a C program.

Remove the 'v' in void and I'd still call it a C program.
With a fatal typo.

That wouldn't be a typo.
That would just be a form of main
which is acceptable to an implementation
which AFAIK has yet to be implemented.
Like this C program:
DoidyDoidyDoidy DoidyDoidyDoidy DoidyDoidyDoidy Doidy

--
pete

[Hallvard B Furuseth]

pete writes:

Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:

> void main() {}
(...)
Remove the 'v' in void and I'd still call it a C program.
With a fatal typo.

That wouldn't be a typo.
That would just be a form of main
which is acceptable to an implementation
which AFAIK has yet to be implemented.
Like this C program:
DoidyDoidyDoidy DoidyDoidyDoidy DoidyDoidyDoidy Doidy

Irony aside, that's a good point. I don't know where to draw the line,
but a deliberately non-compiling program seems as good limit as any.
So it'd not be a program if I deliberately removed the 'v' as above,
but it would be if I accidentally leaned on the delete key. Oh well.
Good enough, if one has to find a limit.

--
Hallvard