Michel Bardiaux <mi*************@peaktime.be> wrote in message news:<G4********************@giganews.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  3888 
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.google.co m... Michel Bardiaux <mi*************@peaktime.be> wrote in message
news:<G4********************@giganews.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.com
(MSG) wrote: Michel Bardiaux <mi*************@peaktime.be> wrote in message news:<G4********************@giganews.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.ANSISTANDARDC. 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********@yahoo.com) (cb********@worldnet.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.com
(MSG) wrote:
the nameof this group is NOT comp.lang.ANSISTANDARDC.
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******@mkwahler.net> wrote in message news:<ed*******************@newsread1.news.pas.ear thlink.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.com
(MSG) wrote:
Michel Bardiaux <mi*************@peaktime.be> wrote in message news:<G4********************@giganews.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.ANSISTANDARDC. 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.com
(MSG) wrote:
the nameof this group is NOT comp.lang.ANSISTANDARDC.
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
"MSG" <ms*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:54**************************@posting.google.c om... Dear Herr Wahler:
Despite my name (correctly) indicating my ancestry,
I am not a "German", nor have I ever been to Germany.
My use of "Herr" in my previous post was only in
response to your (imo tasteless) Nazi references.
I know you'll do what you like, but the 'formal' way
to address me (an "American") is "Mr. Wahler".
But I have no problem with being addressed as either
simply "Mike" or "Wahler".
Whatever.
"Mike Wahler" <mk******@mkwahler.net> wrote in message
news:<ed*******************@newsread1.news.pas.ear thlink.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.
It wasn't "obvious" to me. What seems obvious is your
troll-like behavior.
IOW what was the actual purpose of your post?
I cannot see that it served any useful purpose at all.
It seems designed only to cause discord. (Thus my
labelling you a 'troll').
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".
Not in the C language. There are none at all. The concept
is not defined by the language at all.
The point being, the
behavior of function calls is, strictly speaking, undefined
It's very well defined. Read The Standard!
(or else
only the implementations that detect stack overflow, instead of
crashing, can be conforming)
There is absolutely no requirement that a C implementation use
a 'stack' at all in order to be conforming.
If you're going to troll, at least learn how first.
There is a difference between trolling and sarcasm. Vide supra.
I can only make judgments based upon your behavior.
On the second thought, I will not use "</sarcasm>" tags, so as to give
the feebleminded plenty of opportunity to expose themselves.
Enough,.
*PLONK*
-Mike
"MSG" <ms*****@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:54**************************@posting.google.c om... 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.com
(MSG) wrote:
Michel Bardiaux <mi*************@peaktime.be> wrote in message
news:<G4********************@giganews.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.ANSISTANDARDC. 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.
You have proven nothing.
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);
}
Unless argc has a value of 1, the behavior of this
program is undefined.
There is also no I/O occurring in that program at all.
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.
I expressed no such assumption. The topic of this group is the
C language as defined by ISO. That definition makes specifications
about behaviors that are defined, and specifically indicates
which usages and constructs result in behavior which it does *not*
define.
-Mike
Erik wrote: the nameof this group is NOT comp.lang.ANSISTANDARDC. That fact raises
all kinds of questions...
ANSI C is just one form of a **living** language. Important form, but
nevertheless a moving target.
Oh, geez. Another idiot.
--
Martin Ambuhl
"Mike Wahler" <mk******@mkwahler.net> wrote in message news:<_Z*******************@newsread2.news.pas.ear thlink.net>... [Ich bin] "Mr. Wahler".
Dear Self-Appointed Unmoderated Newsgroup Moderator Impersonator,
Mr. or Ms., you still troll newsgroups, posting a gazillion messages a
day telling others in a very rude way what they shouldn't be talking
about, hence, regarless of your ancestry, you are, by definition, a
garden variety Topic Nazi.
It would appear that you have no other life, job, or interests; and
the mere repetitiveness of your actions does not tire you.
"Nazi", in this sense, has nothing to do with Germany, silly, c.f.
"Soup Nazi", who was South American.
Or shall we still use a more politically correct term like the one
above?
Anyhow, you are boring me with your low intellect and inability even
to flame entertainingly.
MSG
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 23:25:40 +0100, Erik wrote: 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.com
(MSG) wrote:
the nameof this group is NOT comp.lang.ANSISTANDARDC.
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.
But do you go into a religions forum (such as a temple or a church and
insist on loudly discussion last nights soccer match?
The term Nazi is very much out of order.
But the comparison to religion is as obvious as ever.
Yes we pray for and receive memory from our god malloc. But fear the demon
known as UB that has the habit of arriving through your nose.
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.
So we should be allowed to discuss football loudly in the temple?
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.
Asking questions about the bible in (chrisitan) sunday school is
acceptable, if you want to discuss the koran you go where they discuss
that. If you can't tell what is acceptable talk when you enter a room you
shut up until you see what the others talk about.
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.
So go to another group where you won't be distracted by the standard.
And that is the ultimate goal of usenet too: generous exchange of
knowledge.
Bull. Usenet has no unified goal. But the goal of what appears to be the
majority of this group is to have a place where they can have general
discussion about things that will be true for all standard compliant
compilers, without getting distracted by "btw this only works on gcc"
threads.
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.
If you don't want high priests you should get out of what you compared to
a religous fundamentalist group.
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.
So can't verify that any advice you get here is from someone you trust.
That means you will have to do your own research to see if an answer is a
correct solution. (even getting a suggestion and then checking that the
statements are true you can't know it's the -best- solution). So the
group is essentially useless to you, feel free to leave any time.
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.
You are correct.
comp.lang.c The C computer language.
NOT comp.lang.visual.c
NOT comp.lang.gnu.c
NOT comp.lang.intel.c
NOT comp.lang.borland.c
NOT comp.lang.c.and.extensions
NOT comp.lang.c.cross.implementation.performance.trick s
--
NPV
"the large print giveth, and the small print taketh away"
Tom Waits - Step right up But do you go into a religions forum (such as a temple or a church and
insist on loudly discussion last nights soccer match?
So you ARE a religous group :-)
The term Nazi is very much out of order.
But the comparison to religion is as obvious as ever.
So we should be allowed to discuss football loudly in the temple?
I haven't seen any football in this group ....
Asking questions about the bible in (chrisitan) sunday school is
acceptable, if you want to discuss the koran you go where they discuss
that. If you can't tell what is acceptable talk when you enter a room you
shut up until you see what the others talk about.
there is no charter, remember ?
And that is the ultimate goal of usenet too: generous exchange of
knowledge.
Bull. Usenet has no unified goal. But the goal of what appears to be the
majority of this group is to have a place where they can have general
discussion about things that will be true for all standard compliant
compilers, without getting distracted by "btw this only works on gcc"
threads.
"general" being the key word ?
If you don't want high priests you should get out of what you compared to
a religous fundamentalist group.
So tyou ARE a religous group !
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.
So can't verify that any advice you get here is from someone you trust.
That means you will have to do your own research to see if an answer is a
correct solution.
yes, always.
(even getting a suggestion and then checking that the
statements are true you can't know it's the -best- solution). So the
group is essentially useless to you, feel free to leave any time.
No, wrong conclusion: the suggestions are mostly very welcome, but the
choices and the responsability will always be mine and mine alone.
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.
You are correct.
comp.lang.c The C computer language.
Come out of your temple and go out into the world and see: there is no
"the C language". only implementations of it.
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:44:02 +0000 (UTC), the right honourable Richard
Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote: MSG wrote:
Everything else ist verboten!
Heil...
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/G/Godwins-Law.html
Thank you for that link.
It illustrates a common debating strategy, to poison a debate:
Accuse the opposition of just a little bit more than is called for, so
the other party goes into defensive mode.
That way, you shake off your oponent, but the discussion has stranded.
A lose-lose situation.
The obvious counter-stratey is, of course, to not pay the slightest
attention to the accusation and keep your eyes on the ball.
The trick is very common in discussions about beliefs, which are by
nature destined to explode anyway, in my observation.
It is also very effective when you want to stop a discussion and leave
with the conviction that the other is an idiot.
The remedy here on usenet is, I think, the moderated group.
Usenet anarchy, however attractive sometimes, does not always work...
frgr
Erik
Erik <et57 at correos calor dot com> scribbled the following: But do you go into a religions forum (such as a temple or a church and
insist on loudly discussion last nights soccer match?
So you ARE a religous group :-)
Non sequitur. The religions forum mentioned above is not necessarily
comp.lang.c.
The term Nazi is very much out of order.
But the comparison to religion is as obvious as ever.
So we should be allowed to discuss football loudly in the temple?
I haven't seen any football in this group ....
Another non sequitur. It was an analogy, not a direct observation.
IOW, of course you haven't seen any football in this group. This
group is not "the temple", it's an analogy of "the temple", and
off-topic discussion is an analogy of football.
Asking questions about the bible in (chrisitan) sunday school is
acceptable, if you want to discuss the koran you go where they discuss
that. If you can't tell what is acceptable talk when you enter a room you
shut up until you see what the others talk about.
there is no charter, remember ?
Who said anything about a charter?
And that is the ultimate goal of usenet too: generous exchange of
knowledge.
Bull. Usenet has no unified goal. But the goal of what appears to be the
majority of this group is to have a place where they can have general
discussion about things that will be true for all standard compliant
compilers, without getting distracted by "btw this only works on gcc"
threads.
"general" being the key word ?
Well, yes. And the only way to ensure true generality is to stick to
the standard.
If you don't want high priests you should get out of what you compared to
a religous fundamentalist group.
So tyou ARE a religous group !
Get a clue, will you? Yet another non sequitur.
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.
You are correct.
comp.lang.c The C computer language.
Come out of your temple and go out into the world and see: there is no
"the C language". only implementations of it.
How can there be implementations of something that doesn't exist? Are
you out of your mind?
There are such things as "abstract concepts", you know. The C language
is one such concept. The standard is there to decide what qualifies as
a C language implementation.
--
/-- Joona Palaste (pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi) ------------- Finland --------\
\-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/
"Parthenogenetic procreation in humans will result in the founding of a new
religion."
- John Nordberg
Erik <et57 at correos calor dot com> wrote: 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:
the nameof this group is NOT comp.lang.ANSISTANDARDC.
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.
(It's been ISO rather than ANSI for about two and a half decades now,
btw.)
Yes, and nothing has changed much since.
You don't really know what you're talking about, do you? Perhaps you
should take a look at the old Standard, some day, and compare that to
K&R 1; and then do the same for C99 and C89.
C is still a religion rather than a production tool, to many.
Not to me. I do actually use C, rather than pray to it.
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.
If a standard keeps changing, why have it in the first place? A standard
is something to depend on.
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.
Wrong. _My_ boss also wants a maintainable program which works correctly
by design, not by accident.
And that is the ultimate goal of usenet too: generous exchange of
knowledge.
Knowledge, yes. Not vague guesswork and buggy code.
In short: a philosophical view and approach is much better that a
religious one,in my opinion.
I'm sorry, but that is simply non-information.
And there is no charter. So who determins which questions are
off-topic ? the "regulars" you say.
Yes.
A problem with the internet is one of identity. We do not know the
regulars, never seen them, never heard them, never met them.
All the same, if you had lurked here for a couple of weeks or so before
posting (as used to be considered polite; o tempura, o moray, as we
Latinists say), you'd have known who can be trusted, who cannot, and who
usually can but needs to be checked.
No white-robed high-priests for me, thank you.
We're not talking about high priests here. The analogy is completely
false. They're more like the well-known old geezers down the pub.
My rule of thumb is: only trust if you have to. Or, As Ronnie Reagan
once said about the russians: trust but verify.
As Ronnie Reagan also once said: gablooie bla bloogle gor. The man was
demented even before he was diagnosed.
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.
IOW, be an anti-social piece of work, and try to make the group
unusable. Well, thanks a lot, buster.
Richard
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:22:07 +0100, Erik wrote:
You might want to have a line like that in your posts, and leave the old
ones in there too when there is more than one level of quoting. Makes it
easier for people to know who said what. I added a line below
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:22:07 +0100, Erik wrote: Nils Petter Vaskinn wrote:
But do you go into a religions forum (such as a temple or a church and
insist on loudly discussion last nights soccer match?
So you ARE a religous group :-)
No, not in my opinion. But since you seem to believe we are you should
behave as you would do towards a religous group.
So we should be allowed to discuss football loudly in the temple?
I haven't seen any football in this group ....
No. But you have seen discussion about things outside the topic of this
group. If (as you seem to think) we have a religion around standard C
coming here discussing non-standard C is like going to the temple to
discuss football, you end up upsetting the 'believers'.
If you can't tell what is acceptable talk when you enter a room you
shut up until you see what the others talk about.
there is no charter, remember ?
Irrelevant.
If you go into a room where religion is practiced (as you seem to think we
do here) do you start talking about football because there is no sign
saying not to?
And that is the ultimate goal of usenet too: generous exchange of
knowledge.
Bull. Usenet has no unified goal. But the goal of what appears to be the
majority of this group is to have a place where they can have general
discussion about things that will be true for all standard compliant
compilers, without getting distracted by "btw this only works on gcc"
threads.
"general" being the key word ?
Yes, and to avoid polluting the general information with implementation
specific information we try to redirect those questions to implementation
specific groups.
If you don't want high priests you should get out of what you compared to
a religous fundamentalist group.
So tyou ARE a religous group !
Again. You compared us to a religious group, I'm merely pointing out that
your behaviour isn't consistent with the way most people behave towards a
religios group.
So can't verify that any advice you get here is from someone you trust.
That means you will have to do your own research to see if an answer is a
correct solution.
yes, always.
(even getting a suggestion and then checking that the
statements are true you can't know it's the -best- solution). So the
group is essentially useless to you, feel free to leave any time.
No, wrong conclusion: the suggestions are mostly very welcome, but the
choices and the responsability will always be mine and mine alone.
Some common sense.
Come out of your temple and go out into the world and see: there is no
"the C language". only implementations of it.
We all know. But this forum is for discussion of what would work on the
imaginary perfect implementation that implements the standard and nothing
else. If you want do discuss the extras there are places for that, so why
do you insist on doing it here?
You are free to propose a new group (like comp.lang.c.implementations)
where cross implementation performance questions, like the one that
sparked all of this, could be on-topic per the charter.
--
NPV
"the large print giveth, and the small print taketh away"
Tom Waits - Step right up
Richard Bos wrote: All the same, if you had lurked here for a couple of weeks or so before
posting (as used to be considered polite; o tempura, o moray, as we
Latinists say) [...]
Perhaps you meant Cicero's lament O tempora! O mores!
<g>
Mike Wahler <mk******@mkwahler.net> spoke thus: int main(int argc, char * argv[]) {
return (argc - 1);
}
Unless argc has a value of 1, the behavior of this
program is undefined.
Don't you mean "implementation-defined"? The implemtation could be
perfectly happy with return 42; right?
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
Grumble <in*****@kma.eu.org> wrote: Richard Bos wrote:
All the same, if you had lurked here for a couple of weeks or so before
posting (as used to be considered polite; o tempura, o moray, as we
Latinists say) [...]
Perhaps you meant Cicero's lament O tempora! O mores!
I knew there was something fishy about the way I'd written it...
Richard
MSG <ms*****@yahoo.com> spoke thus: Anyhow, you are boring me with your low intellect and inability even
to flame entertainingly.
Claiming that Mr. Wahler is one of "low intellect" certainly tells us
quite a bit about your own mental powers.
Heil Herr Wahler! ;)
*plonk*
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
Erik wrote:
I sort of have promised myself to not participate in these threads,
but I feel I cannot let this one go by.
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.
That someone chooses not to discuss certain issues here which
are somewhat related to C programming does not mean they do not
discuss it or even use it somewhere else.
Context serves as a limiting factor you know. If someone asks
how to turn up gcc to maximimum warning level I choose not to
answer even though I know how to do this. Because you see,
this is a mechanism I (and several others) use to keep this
group maximimally useful. It is called focus, as it is now I find
that I either find something interesting and educational or I
already know it and can perform quality control on the material.
Regulars here have found the path to take to make the group
more useful to them, why should they give way to whining newbies
who wants to make it less useful? Out of kindness of their hearts?
I don't think so. No matter what you think, there are exceedingly
few people on usenet who are only after giving away free help to
others, if there is no gain for someone they will leave.
You get what you pay for they say and they say you pay nothing
on usenet. That is wrong, we buy knowledge and ideas with knowledge
and ideas. By keeping this group focused I have more to pay with
and can so buy more. If you want to devaluate my knowledge with respect
to this newsgroup I will fight you.
--
Thomas.
Erik wrote: The remedy here on usenet is, I think, the moderated group.
Usenet anarchy, however attractive sometimes, does not always work...
Moderated groups, as a general rule, lacks dynamicity and in general,
that sucks. I like the fact that I can get my questions answered within
the hour here as opposed to alt.atheism.moderated (where I only lurk
and is the only moderated newsgroup I currently subscribe to) where
it can be days between new posts.
--
Thomas.
In <c0**********@chessie.cirr.com> Christopher Benson-Manica <at***@nospam.cyberspace.org> writes: Mike Wahler <mk******@mkwahler.net> spoke thus:
int main(int argc, char * argv[]) {
return (argc - 1);
}
Unless argc has a value of 1, the behavior of this
program is undefined.
Don't you mean "implementation-defined"? The implemtation could be
perfectly happy with return 42; right?
It's a bit more complex. Usual implementations cannot predict the value
of argc, so the behaviour cannot be entirely implementation-defined. Once
the user input is known, the behaviour becomes implementation-defined,
indeed, but in the absence of this information, the behaviour is no better
specified than the behaviour of
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, char **argv)
{
printf("%d\n", argc);
return 0;
}
Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de
On 10 Feb 2004 23:42:23 -0800, ms*****@yahoo.com (MSG) wrote: you are, by definition, a
garden variety Topic Nazi.
I've reviewed my local archive, and you have contributed little of a
technical nature. Much of what you have written of a technical nature
is inaccurate or off-topic. Fortunately, I'm not enough of an
authority as to feel any obligation to correct your inaccuracies, so I
am personally invoking Godwin's Law in the form of a filter. Bye, now.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting re************************@att.net
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:45:48 +0100, Erik <et57 at correos calor dot
com> wrote: The remedy here on usenet is, I think, the moderated group.
Usenet anarchy, however attractive sometimes, does not always work...
You seem to be trying to prove that.
Moderated groups, while useful, have their own problems, chief of
which is timeliness - one can't expect a reply to a post within a
short time.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting re************************@att.net
Erik wrote: 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.
Erik...
You can see my ugly face and read a brief work history at http://www.iedu.com/mrd/mrd_self.html. You can do a Google groups
search on my name or that of any of the regulars to at least
acquire a notion as to participation in this ng - and you can
review the archived posts of anyone who has posted here.
Deciding to trust and/or rating the proficiency of any of the
regulars (or others) is /your/ burden. No one can or desires to
make these decisions for you.
FWIW, I've found the regulars to be knowledgable, intelligent,
generous, and straightforeward - if not always diplomatic. I'd be
proud to work with any of them on any project.
Does that help?
--
Morris Dovey
West Des Moines, Iowa USA
C links at http://www.iedu.com/c
Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
MSG <ms*****@yahoo.com> spoke thus:
Anyhow, you are boring me with your low intellect and inability even
to flame entertainingly.
Claiming that Mr. Wahler is one of "low intellect" certainly tells us
quite a bit about your own mental powers.
Heil Herr Wahler! ;)
*plonk*
I agree, that's enough of this clown.
*plonk*
Brian Rodenborn
Erik wrote: 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.
This guy can go plonkety-plonk too.
Brian Rodenborn
Grumble wrote: Richard Bos wrote:
All the same, if you had lurked here for a couple of weeks or so before
posting (as used to be considered polite; o tempura, o moray, as we
Latinists say) [...]
Perhaps you meant Cicero's lament O tempora! O mores!
He was referring to _hungry_ Latinists.
--
Martin Ambuhl If a standard keeps changing, why have it in the first place? A standard
is something to depend on.
As an engineer who has worked on and contributed to standards, I can
assure you that a standard is a moving target.
As soon as standards, like ISO, are voted from draft to standard, new
work begins on the revision of it.
A standard is a snapshot, outdated when taken.
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.
Wrong. _My_ boss also wants a maintainable program which works correctly
by design, not by accident.
built with inplementations of...
And that is the ultimate goal of usenet too: generous exchange of
knowledge.
Knowledge, yes. Not vague guesswork and buggy code.
Standardisation lives off buggy code.
In short: a philosophical view and approach is much better that a
religious one,in my opinion.
I'm sorry, but that is simply non-information.
closed minds do not receive information.
And there is no charter. So who determins which questions are
off-topic ? the "regulars" you say.
Yes.
A problem with the internet is one of identity. We do not know the
regulars, never seen them, never heard them, never met them.
All the same, if you had lurked here for a couple of weeks or so before
posting (as used to be considered polite; o tempura, o moray, as we
Latinists say), you'd have known who can be trusted, who cannot, and who
usually can but needs to be checked.
No white-robed high-priests for me, thank you.
We're not talking about high priests here. The analogy is completely
false.
Yes we are and no it's not.
And you know and feel it.
I can tell by your fierceness.
frgr
Erik
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:02:02 +0100, the right honourable Grumble
<in*****@kma.eu.org> wrote: Richard Bos wrote:
All the same, if you had lurked here for a couple of weeks or so before
posting (as used to be considered polite; o tempura, o moray, as we
Latinists say) [...]
Perhaps you meant Cicero's lament O tempora! O mores!
<g>
Is mr. Bos impersonating ?
Erik <et57 at correos calor dot com> wrote: On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 18:44:02 +0000 (UTC), the right honourable Richard
Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
MSG wrote:
Everything else ist verboten!
Heil...
http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/G/Godwins-Law.html
Thank you for that link.
It illustrates a common debating strategy, to poison a debate:
No, the debate was already poisoned when "MSG" used the word "Nazi" to
describe people who simply wish to keep a technical newsgroup focused on
its topic. Some people who read this newsgroup are related to people who
suffered directly from Nazi oppression. If "MSG" wishes to be taken
seriously, he should not be so foolish as to draw boneheaded comparisons
between Nazi oppressors and topicality-conscious newsgroups.
<snip>
It is also very effective when you want to stop a discussion and leave
with the conviction that the other is an idiot.
Well, he /is/ an idiot, if he confuses topicality with Nazism.
--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:34:33 +0000, the right honourable Thomas Stegen
CES2000 <ts************@cis.strath.ac.uk> wrote: Erik wrote:
I sort of have promised myself to not participate in these threads,
but I feel I cannot let this one go by.
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.
That someone chooses not to discuss certain issues here which
are somewhat related to C programming does not mean they do not
discuss it or even use it somewhere else.
Context serves as a limiting factor you know. If someone asks
how to turn up gcc to maximimum warning level I choose not to
answer even though I know how to do this. Because you see,
this is a mechanism I (and several others) use to keep this
group maximimally useful. It is called focus, as it is now I find
that I either find something interesting and educational or I
already know it and can perform quality control on the material.
Regulars here have found the path to take to make the group
more useful to them, why should they give way to whining newbies
who wants to make it less useful? Out of kindness of their hearts?
I don't think so. No matter what you think, there are exceedingly
few people on usenet who are only after giving away free help to
others, if there is no gain for someone they will leave.
You get what you pay for they say and they say you pay nothing
on usenet. That is wrong, we buy knowledge and ideas with knowledge
and ideas. By keeping this group focused I have more to pay with
and can so buy more. If you want to devaluate my knowledge with respect
to this newsgroup I will fight you.
Must not the conclusion be:
The anarchy at the base of Usenet or even Internet, does not always
work very well for everybody ?
comp.lang.c will always be accessible to everyone...
frgr
Erik
Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> spoke thus: No, the debate was already poisoned when "MSG" used the word "Nazi" to
describe people who simply wish to keep a technical newsgroup focused on
its topic. Some people who read this newsgroup are related to people who
suffered directly from Nazi oppression. If "MSG" wishes to be taken
seriously, he should not be so foolish as to draw boneheaded comparisons
between Nazi oppressors and topicality-conscious newsgroups.
Just to clarify, even though I believe this has been discussed
previously, the term "Nazi" here refers to the "Soup Nazi" on the
television comedy Seinfeld. The "Soup Nazi" had nothing to do with
the political group, or indeed with Germans; he was merely zealously
protective of his soup. So while the heading "Topic Nazis" remains
unflattering, the OP (troll that he is) did not, I presume, intend to
draw comparisons between the comp.lang.c regulars and German Nazis.
Whether the creators of Seinfeld erred in naming the "Soup Nazi" thus
is, of course, another question entirely.
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
Christopher Benson-Manica <at***@nospam.cyberspace.org> scribbled the following: Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> spoke thus: No, the debate was already poisoned when "MSG" used the word "Nazi" to
describe people who simply wish to keep a technical newsgroup focused on
its topic. Some people who read this newsgroup are related to people who
suffered directly from Nazi oppression. If "MSG" wishes to be taken
seriously, he should not be so foolish as to draw boneheaded comparisons
between Nazi oppressors and topicality-conscious newsgroups.
Just to clarify, even though I believe this has been discussed
previously, the term "Nazi" here refers to the "Soup Nazi" on the
television comedy Seinfeld. The "Soup Nazi" had nothing to do with
the political group, or indeed with Germans; he was merely zealously
protective of his soup. So while the heading "Topic Nazis" remains
unflattering, the OP (troll that he is) did not, I presume, intend to
draw comparisons between the comp.lang.c regulars and German Nazis.
Whether the creators of Seinfeld erred in naming the "Soup Nazi" thus
is, of course, another question entirely.
Want to bet that the creators of Seinfeld thought of the German Nazis
when they named the "Soup Nazi"? Otherwise he'd be called the "Soup
zealot" or something.
--
/-- Joona Palaste (pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi) ------------- Finland --------\
\-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/
"I wish someone we knew would die so we could leave them flowers."
- A 6-year-old girl, upon seeing flowers in a cemetery
Erik wrote: Must not the conclusion be:
The anarchy at the base of Usenet or even Internet, does not always
work very well for everybody ?
Apparently so. Right now I consider comp.lang.c to work well
for me. You can try to change it all you want. If you succeed
I will leave and I guess many of the other regulars will too.
I have no sympathy for your case unless you can convince me that
things would improve for me. As it is, I can discuss anything
I want on usenet. Each newsgroup stands as a beacon of competence
giving guidance.
You are proposing a gray soup of knowledge where I might or might
not find what I am looking for. Thousands of comp.lang.misc groups
is something I do not want to be a part of.
comp.lang.c will always be accessible to everyone...
You do not appear to understand what it means for something
to be anarchic. Since there is anarchy I can fight to keep
or make things the way I want them.
comp.lang.c is accessible for everyone. It is not open for
every topic.
--
Thomas.
Joona I Palaste <pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi> spoke thus: Want to bet that the creators of Seinfeld thought of the German Nazis
when they named the "Soup Nazi"? Otherwise he'd be called the "Soup
zealot" or something.
Most likely. For most people, though, a "Nazi" now is a zealot rather
than a Third Reich German. Seinfeld made the word acceptable in that
context, which I feel some would argue was undesireable.
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
In <k2********************************@4ax.com> Erik <et57 at correos calor dot com> writes: And there is no charter. So who determins which questions are
off-topic ? the "regulars" you say.
What would be a technical newsgroup without its regulars? A next to
useless place, because you'd never have any a priori indication about
the quality of one answer or another. Since they are the most valuable
resource of a newsgroup, they also have the privilege to decide the
"moderation policy".
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.
When choosing technical books, do you select *only* the ones whose
authors you know personally (have met, seen, spoken to)? Why would be
the Internet any different?
Especially trusting them with any power to decide...etc.
You don't have to trust them with that power, it is a power they
acquired themselves, based on their own merits. If you don't like the
job they do, find another newsgroup or create one of your own.
(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.
They exist and exert their power, whether you like it or not.
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.
That's your problem. On the net, the credentials of each individual
are his posts and they are available to anyone interested.
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.
OK, so you're now trying to act as a super-high-priest, imposing to the
high-priests what (not) to do. Why would they bother to listen to you?
The Usenet rules have been cast in concrete long ago: the newcomer *must*
lurk for a while, in order to figure out what the newsgroup is about,
rather than act based on *assumptions* derived from the newsgroup's name.
In the process, he'll also figure out who are the newsgroup's regulars
that are worth paying attention to and who is/are the village idiot(s).
You have as many chances to change the Usenet rules as you have to impose
your will to the newsgroup's regulars. In other words, you're wasting
your time.
Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de
Christopher Benson-Manica <at***@nospam.cyberspace.org> scribbled the following: Joona I Palaste <pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi> spoke thus: Want to bet that the creators of Seinfeld thought of the German Nazis
when they named the "Soup Nazi"? Otherwise he'd be called the "Soup
zealot" or something.
Most likely. For most people, though, a "Nazi" now is a zealot rather
than a Third Reich German. Seinfeld made the word acceptable in that
context, which I feel some would argue was undesireable.
Finnish children have taken to calling their parents "f*cking Nazis"
because they dare to set regulations on their lives. The same children
call all boys "f*cking faggots" and all girls "f*cking whores".
--
/-- Joona Palaste (pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi) ------------- Finland --------\
\-- http://www.helsinki.fi/~palaste --------------------- rules! --------/
"Last year he disrespected me - and then he showed lack of respect."
- Anthony Mason
Joona I Palaste <pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi> spoke thus: Finnish children have taken to calling their parents "f*cking Nazis"
because they dare to set regulations on their lives. The same children
call all boys "f*cking faggots" and all girls "f*cking whores".
The same children are indicative of the current state of society,
which I fear is not what one might hope. "Spare the rod and spoil the
child."
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
Christopher Benson-Manica wrote: Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> spoke thus:
No, the debate was already poisoned when "MSG" used the word "Nazi" to
describe people who simply wish to keep a technical newsgroup focused on
its topic. Some people who read this newsgroup are related to people who
suffered directly from Nazi oppression. If "MSG" wishes to be taken
seriously, he should not be so foolish as to draw boneheaded comparisons
between Nazi oppressors and topicality-conscious newsgroups.
Just to clarify, even though I believe this has been discussed
previously, the term "Nazi" here refers to the "Soup Nazi" on the
television comedy Seinfeld.
This may, or may not be true, for people in the USA who are familiar with
that television program. Believe it or not, however, 95% of the population
of this planet does /not/ live in the USA, and might not be familiar with
US television culture (appalling as this may sound to those who cannot
imagine anything else).
The vast majority of people directly affected by Nazis were not from the
USA. The way in which a limited number of people in the USA choose to use
the word "Nazi" does not change the enormously damaging impact that the
National Socialist Party had on Europe in the 1930s and 1940s. Those who
are ignorant of this impact are playing with fire when they treat it as if
it were of little or no account.
--
Richard Heathfield : bi****@eton.powernet.co.uk
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 19:06:43 +0000 (UTC), Christopher Benson-Manica
<at***@nospam.cyberspace.org> wrote: Joona I Palaste <pa*****@cc.helsinki.fi> spoke thus:
Want to bet that the creators of Seinfeld thought of the German Nazis
when they named the "Soup Nazi"? Otherwise he'd be called the "Soup
zealot" or something.
Most likely. For most people, though, a "Nazi" now is a zealot rather
than a Third Reich German. Seinfeld made the word acceptable in that
context, which I feel some would argue was undesireable.
Speak for yourself. I suspect that "most people" don't even know who
Seinfeld is, let alone consider him the arbiter of acceptable words.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting re************************@att.net
Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> spoke thus: This may, or may not be true, for people in the USA who are familiar with
that television program. Believe it or not, however, 95% of the population
of this planet does /not/ live in the USA, and might not be familiar with
US television culture (appalling as this may sound to those who cannot
imagine anything else).
s/appalling/appealing. Really, I understand this. I was pointing
out that the OP probably did not.
Those who
are ignorant of this impact are playing with fire when they treat it as if
it were of little or no account.
I don't think people who associate "Nazi" with the Soup Nazi are
necessarily ignorant of the impact of real Nazis; they likely (IMHO)
simply fail to see the connection. I suppose it's like other racially
and ethnically charged expressions ("I got gypped" and "jerryrigged"
come to mind) that people use without connecting them to their
original bigoted connotations. Viewing my own use of the word "Nazi"
in this light makes me want to eliminate it from my casual vocabulary.
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
Alan Balmer <al******@att.net> spoke thus: Speak for yourself. I suspect that "most people" don't even know who
Seinfeld is, let alone consider him the arbiter of acceptable words.
True enough. "most people" should have read "most Americans." FWIW,
I never saw the show.
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 20:21:00 +0000 (UTC), Christopher Benson-Manica
<at***@nospam.cyberspace.org> wrote: Richard Heathfield <do******@address.co.uk.invalid> spoke thus:
This may, or may not be true, for people in the USA who are familiar with
that television program. Believe it or not, however, 95% of the population
of this planet does /not/ live in the USA, and might not be familiar with
US television culture (appalling as this may sound to those who cannot
imagine anything else).
s/appalling/appealing. Really, I understand this. I was pointing
out that the OP probably did not.
Those who
are ignorant of this impact are playing with fire when they treat it as if
it were of little or no account.
I don't think people who associate "Nazi" with the Soup Nazi are
necessarily ignorant of the impact of real Nazis; they likely (IMHO)
simply fail to see the connection.
Possible, I suppose, or possibly Seinfeld fans are a special class
<g>. BTW, I did watch an entire episode once. I never heard the term
"Soup Nazi" until now, though. Must have watched the wrong episode.
I suppose it's like other racially
and ethnically charged expressions ("I got gypped" and "jerryrigged"
come to mind)
I know that "gypped" is supposedly a reference to Gypsy business
practices ;-) I suppose the theory is that "jerryrigged" refers to
Germans? I doubt that's accurate - I think the consensus is that it
(and jerry-built) came from the old naval term "jury-built", referring
to a makeshift contrivance, as in "jury-mast."
that people use without connecting them to their
original bigoted connotations. Viewing my own use of the word "Nazi"
in this light makes me want to eliminate it from my casual vocabulary.
--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting re************************@att.net 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...
|
by: antdb |
last post by:
Ⅰ. Advantage of AntDB: hyper-convergence + streaming processing engine
In the overall architecture, a new "hyper-convergence" concept was proposed, which integrated multiple engines and...
|
by: WisdomUfot |
last post by:
It's an interesting question you've got about how Gmail hides the HTTP referrer when a link in an email is clicked. While I don't have the specific technical details, Gmail likely implements measures...
|
by: Oralloy |
last post by:
Hello Folks,
I am trying to hook up a CPU which I designed using SystemC to I/O pins on an FPGA.
My problem (spelled failure) is with the synthesis of my design into a bitstream, not the C++...
|
by: Carina712 |
last post by:
Setting background colors for Excel documents can help to improve the visual appeal of the document and make it easier to read and understand. Background colors can be used to highlight important...
|
by: BLUEPANDA |
last post by:
At BluePanda Dev, we're passionate about building high-quality software and sharing our knowledge with the community. That's why we've created a SaaS starter kit that's not only easy to use but also...
|
by: Rahul1995seven |
last post by:
Introduction:
In the realm of programming languages, Python has emerged as a powerhouse. With its simplicity, versatility, and robustness, Python has gained popularity among beginners and experts...
|
by: Ricardo de Mila |
last post by:
Dear people, good afternoon...
I have a form in msAccess with lots of controls and a specific routine must be triggered if the mouse_down event happens in any control.
Than I need to discover what...
|
by: Johno34 |
last post by:
I have this click event on my form. It speaks to a Datasheet Subform
Private Sub Command260_Click()
Dim r As DAO.Recordset
Set r = Form_frmABCD.Form.RecordsetClone
r.MoveFirst
Do
If...
|
by: ezappsrUS |
last post by:
Hi,
I wonder if someone knows where I am going wrong below. I have a continuous form and two labels where only one would be visible depending on the checkbox being checked or not. Below is the...
| |
