What is wrong?

[federico_bertola]

Hi everybody!
I have this function:

int Scan(char String[])
{
printf("%s", String);
}

it works but when I try to pass a dotted string o separetad with (" ",
"_" , "-" ...ecc)
it return only first word.
I pass the string in this way:

char CString[] = "I.am.an.example";
Scan(CString);

What's wrong?
Help me please!
Thx!

[santosh]

fe**************@tiscali.it wrote:

Hi everybody!
I have this function:

int Scan(char String[])
{
printf("%s", String);
}

You declared the function as returning as int but you don't return
anything. Consider changing it to:
void Scan(char String[]);

it works but when I try to pass a dotted string o separetad with (" ",
"_" , "-" ...ecc)
it return only first word.

Well it should print all the characters in the array upto the first
null character. Certainly dots and dashes should be printed.

Have you checked that your array doesn't contain any null characters
embedded before the end of valid data?

I pass the string in this way:

char CString[] = "I.am.an.example";
Scan(CString);

What's wrong?

Until you can show us a complete, compilable example that exhibits your
problem, (copy & paste the code, don't retype it), we can do much more
than keep guessing.

[Richard Bos]

fe**************@tiscali.it wrote:

int Scan(char String[])
{
printf("%s", String);
}

it works but when I try to pass a dotted string o separetad with (" ",
"_" , "-" ...ecc)
it return only first word.

It returns nothing; presumably you mean that it prints that.

I pass the string in this way:

char CString[] = "I.am.an.example";
Scan(CString);

What's wrong?

Something else.

Post a small, compilable sample of code that demonstrates the problem.
It is not in the uncompilable snippets you posted above.

For example, when I compile and run this program:

#include <stdio.h>

int Scan(char String[])
{
printf("%s", String);
}

int main(void)
{
char CString[] = "I.am.an.example";

Scan(CString);

getchar();
return 0;
}

the result is that I.am.an.example is printed, in its entirety.

Richard

[Suman]

Richard Bos wrote:

fe**************@tiscali.it wrote:

int Scan(char String[])
{
printf("%s", String);
}

it works but when I try to pass a dotted string o separetad with (" ",
"_" , "-" ...ecc)
it return only first word.

It returns nothing; presumably you mean that it prints that.

I pass the string in this way:

char CString[] = "I.am.an.example";
Scan(CString);

What's wrong?

Something else.

Post a small, compilable sample of code that demonstrates the problem.
It is not in the uncompilable snippets you posted above.

For example, when I compile and run this program:

#include <stdio.h>

int Scan(char String[])
{
printf("%s", String);
}

int main(void)
{
char CString[] = "I.am.an.example";

Scan(CString);

getchar();
return 0;
}

the result is that I.am.an.example is printed, in its entirety.

I don't believe that! (I mean, from you, this little slip.)
(Look at http://snipurl.com/iqxx)

[Richard Bos]

"Suman" <sk*****@gmail.comwrote:

>
Richard Bos wrote:

fe**************@tiscali.it wrote:

int Scan(char String[])
{
printf("%s", String);
}
>
it works but when I try to pass a dotted string o separetad with (" ",
"_" , "-" ...ecc)
it return only first word.

It returns nothing; presumably you mean that it prints that.

I pass the string in this way:
>
char CString[] = "I.am.an.example";
Scan(CString);
>
What's wrong?

Something else.

Post a small, compilable sample of code that demonstrates the problem.
It is not in the uncompilable snippets you posted above.

For example, when I compile and run this program:

#include <stdio.h>

int Scan(char String[])
{
printf("%s", String);
}

int main(void)
{
char CString[] = "I.am.an.example";

Scan(CString);

getchar();
return 0;
}

the result is that I.am.an.example is printed, in its entirety.

I don't believe that!

You are free to disbelieve that the earth is pentangular, for all I
care. I wrote that when _I_ run that program, it prints the entire
string; and it does. As for the final newline, the cursor does indeed
start after the printed string, without a newline in between, and a
newline is only printed when I press enter; this is one legal result of
the program.

Richard

[federico_bertola]

As you want, the original source is...

File Sample.h

void Scan(char String[])
{
printf("%s", String); // this return only 1 word
}
File main.c

#include <stdio.h>
#include "Sample.h"

int main()
{
char SampleString[] = "I.am.a.sample.string";
Scan(SampleString);
return 0;
}
Help me!

[santosh]

fe**************@tiscali.it wrote:

As you want, the original source is...

File Sample.h

void Scan(char String[])
{
printf("%s", String); // this return only 1 word
}

Why are putting the function definition in a header file? Place the
definition in main.c and only the declaration in Sample.h

By the way, you don't provide a function declaration at all.

Also include a newline character at the end of your printf() format
string. Otherwise, the output is not guaranteed to appear on the output
device.

File main.c

#include <stdio.h>
#include "Sample.h"

int main()

Use the form int main(void)

{
char SampleString[] = "I.am.a.sample.string";
Scan(SampleString);
return 0;
}

The program should print the string correctly. Your code compiles and
behaves as it should on my system. I suggest adding a newline at the
end of the printf() statement in Scan(). What is the exact output that
you're getting?

[Andrew Poelstra]

On 2006-07-04, Richard Bos <rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nlwrote:

fe**************@tiscali.it wrote:

>int Scan(char String[])
{
printf("%s", String);
}

it works but when I try to pass a dotted string o separetad with (" ",
"_" , "-" ...ecc)
it return only first word.

It returns nothing; presumably you mean that it prints that.

Actually, I wouldn't doubt that some register issue is causing it
to in fact return the first word. Since dropping off the end of a
non-void function is undefined, this is more than plausible.

That and the fact that if this were true, he would be returning a
pointer as an int... the implications of UB are very interesting.

--
Andrew Poelstra <http://www.wpsoftware.net/blog>
To email me, use "apoelstra" at the above address.
"You people hate mathematics." -- James Harris

[Bart Rider]

fe**************@tiscali.it wrote:

As you want, the original source is...

File Sample.h

void Scan(char String[])
{
printf("%s", String); // this return only 1 word
}
File main.c

#include <stdio.h>
#include "Sample.h"

int main()
{
char SampleString[] = "I.am.a.sample.string";
Scan(SampleString);
return 0;
}
Help me!

No problem here. The program just prints the entire string
'I.am.a.sample.string' and exits.

So what do you think is wrong with it? Have you tested this
code snippet be yourself? Only this snippet, not embedded in
a greater project. Maybe you have some function overloading,
because by the name Scan seems to do something different
than only printing.

Bart

[Andrew Poelstra]

On 2006-07-04, fe**************@tiscali.it <fe**************@tiscali.itwrote:

As you want, the original source is...

File Sample.h

void Scan(char String[])

You should declare, not define, functions in headers. The below belongs
in your .c file.

{
printf("%s", String); // this return only 1 word

I can't imagine how you know that, being as you don't check printf()'s
return value. Also, // is a syntax error in C89, which no doubt you are
supposed to be using.

Also, that statement is equivilant to puts (string); which is likely more
efficient, not to mention easier to read.

}

File main.c

#include <stdio.h>
#include "Sample.h"

int main()

int main(void) is clearer.

{
char SampleString[] = "I.am.a.sample.string";

Indent properly with 2 or 4 spaces.

Scan(SampleString);

This function would be better-named Print, no?

return 0;
}

Help me!

Other than that, it compiles cleanly. And it behaves exactly as
others have said that it does.

However, SampleString does not have a \n at the end, and so you
have no guarantee that anything will display at all.

--
Andrew Poelstra <http://www.wpsoftware.net/blog>
To email me, use "apoelstra" at the above address.
"You people hate mathematics." -- James Harris

[Richard Bos]

Andrew Poelstra <ap*******@localhost.localdomainwrote:

On 2006-07-04, fe**************@tiscali.it <fe**************@tiscali.itwrote:

{
printf("%s", String); // this return only 1 word

Also, that statement is equivilant to puts (string); which is likely more
efficient, not to mention easier to read.

Not quite. That would be printf("%s\n", String);.

Richard

[Eric Sosman]

Andrew Poelstra wrote:

On 2006-07-04, fe**************@tiscali.it <fe**************@tiscali.itwrote:

>>As you want, the original source is...
[...]
printf("%s", String); // this return only 1 word

[...]
Also, that statement is equivilant to puts (string); which is likely more
efficient, not to mention easier to read.

Not quite equivalent: puts() adds a newline.

--
Eric Sosman
es*****@acm-dot-org.invalid

[Andrew Poelstra]

On 2006-07-04, Richard Bos <rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nlwrote:

Andrew Poelstra <ap*******@localhost.localdomainwrote:

>On 2006-07-04, fe**************@tiscali.it <fe**************@tiscali.itwrote:

{
printf("%s", String); // this return only 1 word

>Also, that statement is equivilant to puts (string); which is likely more
efficient, not to mention easier to read.

Not quite. That would be printf("%s\n", String);.

His original statement /should/ have been printf ("%s\n", String); and
that was likely the cause of his original problem.

You are correct, though; I completely missed that. Guess I was looking
at the intent of the code instead of the actual code... good thing we
have quick compilers nowadays.

--
Andrew Poelstra <http://www.wpsoftware.net/blog>
To email me, use "apoelstra" at the above address.
"You people hate mathematics." -- James Harris

[Keith Thompson]

Andrew Poelstra <ap*******@localhost.localdomainwrites:

On 2006-07-04, Richard Bos <rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nlwrote:

>Andrew Poelstra <ap*******@localhost.localdomainwrote:

>>On 2006-07-04, fe**************@tiscali.it
<fe**************@tiscali.itwrote:
{
printf("%s", String); // this return only 1 word

>>Also, that statement is equivilant to puts (string); which is likely more
efficient, not to mention easier to read.

Not quite. That would be printf("%s\n", String);.

His original statement /should/ have been printf ("%s\n", String); and
that was likely the cause of his original problem.

Actually, I'd be surprised if that were the case. It's
implementation-defined whether the newline is required, and if it is
required and you don't supply it then printing a single word is one
legal consequence. But realistically, I doubt that any system the OP
is likely to be using actually does require the newline, and even if
it does, I'd expect the error to appear as nothing being printed at
all.

The OP needs to add the newline and try again, and he needs to
understand the difference between returning something and printing
something.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <* <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

[Andrew Poelstra]

On 2006-07-04, Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote:

Andrew Poelstra <ap*******@localhost.localdomainwrites:

>On 2006-07-04, Richard Bos <rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nlwrote:

>>Andrew Poelstra <ap*******@localhost.localdomainwrote:
On 2006-07-04, fe**************@tiscali.it
<fe**************@tiscali.itwrote:
{
printf("%s", String); // this return only 1 word

Also, that statement is equivilant to puts (string); which is likely more
efficient, not to mention easier to read.

Not quite. That would be printf("%s\n", String);.

His original statement /should/ have been printf ("%s\n", String); and
that was likely the cause of his original problem.

Actually, I'd be surprised if that were the case. It's
implementation-defined whether the newline is required, and if it is
required and you don't supply it then printing a single word is one
legal consequence. But realistically, I doubt that any system the OP
is likely to be using actually does require the newline, and even if
it does, I'd expect the error to appear as nothing being printed at
all.

Out of all the problems with his code, the missing \n seemed the most
likely cause of invalid output. Falling off of the int-returning
function occured /after/ the printf, and most of the other issues were
style-related.

Also, consider that everyone else who tried his code got correct results;
this suggests that the OP was using some uncommon platform or compiler.
But of course that's just speculation on my part.

The OP needs to add the newline and try again, and he needs to
understand the difference between returning something and printing
something.

Absolutely true.

--
Andrew Poelstra <http://www.wpsoftware.net/blog>
To email me, use "apoelstra" at the above address.
"You people hate mathematics." -- James Harris

[Suman]

Richard Bos wrote:

"Suman" <sk*****@gmail.comwrote:

[code relying on imp. defined behavior]

I don't believe that!

You are free to disbelieve that the earth is pentangular, for all I
care. I wrote that when _I_ run that program, it prints the entire
string; and it does. As for the final newline, the cursor does indeed
start after the printed string, without a newline in between, and a
newline is only printed when I press enter; this is one legal result of
the program.

<fumes>
I don't understand why you'd need such an analogy, for all _I_ care.
Simply
put, I expect one to be atleast as vigilant as you expect the others to
be.
Slip-ups happen, you'd better take them in stride.
</fumes>

[Andrew Poelstra]

On 2006-07-04, Suman <sk*****@gmail.comwrote:

>
Richard Bos wrote:

>"Suman" <sk*****@gmail.comwrote:

[code relying on imp. defined behavior]

I don't believe that!

You are free to disbelieve that the earth is pentangular, for all I
care. I wrote that when _I_ run that program, it prints the entire
string; and it does. As for the final newline, the cursor does indeed
start after the printed string, without a newline in between, and a
newline is only printed when I press enter; this is one legal result of
the program.

<fumes>
I don't understand why you'd need such an analogy, for all _I_ care.

If you reorganize that sentence, you said "For all I care, I don't
understand..." (I didn't change the grammatical meaning whatsoever).

Simply
put, I expect one to be atleast as vigilant as you expect the others to
be.

Keith is much more vigilant than he expects most people to be. For
example, I can't imagine that he expects much from you.

Slip-ups happen, you'd better take them in stride.

In most cases, it's best to stop and fix slip-ups, especially in
mission-critical code. That isn't what "take in stride" means, just
so you know.

></fumes>

Being angry is no way to get help; step away from the keyboard for
a few hours.

--
Andrew Poelstra <http://www.wpsoftware.net/blog>
To email me, use "apoelstra" at the above address.
"You people hate mathematics." -- James Harris

[Suman]

Andrew Poelstra wrote:

On 2006-07-04, Suman <sk*****@gmail.comwrote:

Richard Bos wrote:

"Suman" <sk*****@gmail.comwrote:

[ ...]

<fumes>
I don't understand why you'd need such an analogy, for all _I_ care.

If you reorganize that sentence, you said "For all I care, I don't
understand..." (I didn't change the grammatical meaning whatsoever).

I wanted to know why Richard Bos needed that analogy. Period.

Simply
put, I expect one to be atleast as vigilant as you expect the others to
be.

Keith is much more vigilant than he expects most people to be. For
example, I can't imagine that he expects much from you.

I thought I had quoted enough to tell _anyone_ I was replying to
Richard Bos.

Slip-ups happen, you'd better take them in stride.

In most cases, it's best to stop and fix slip-ups, especially in
mission-critical code. That isn't what "take in stride" means, just
so you know.

Re-read. For all you know, you might start reading a bit more into my
post.

Being angry is no way to get help; step away from the keyboard for
a few hours.

Where are you? (I mean, are you having difficulty following the thread?)

[Andrew Poelstra]

On 2006-07-04, Suman <sk*****@gmail.comwrote:

>
Andrew Poelstra wrote:

>On 2006-07-04, Suman <sk*****@gmail.comwrote:

>
Richard Bos wrote:
"Suman" <sk*****@gmail.comwrote:

[ ...]

><fumes>
I don't understand why you'd need such an analogy, for all _I_ care.

If you reorganize that sentence, you said "For all I care, I don't
understand..." (I didn't change the grammatical meaning whatsoever).

I wanted to know why Richard Bos needed that analogy. Period.

Which analogy? If you mean the pentagonal earth one, I think he was trying
to help you understand that you can't respond to helpful replies with "I
don't believe you" and expect to be taken seriouly.

Simply
put, I expect one to be atleast as vigilant as you expect the others to
be.

Keith is much more vigilant than he expects most people to be. For
example, I can't imagine that he expects much from you.

I thought I had quoted enough to tell _anyone_ I was replying to
Richard Bos.

My mistake! I was working on another thread in which Keith Thompson
was involved.

Slip-ups happen, you'd better take them in stride.

In most cases, it's best to stop and fix slip-ups, especially in
mission-critical code. That isn't what "take in stride" means, just
so you know.

Re-read. For all you know, you might start reading a bit more into my
post.

I read some helpful replies, and I read you refusing them. I certainly
can't see how it would be worth my time to go reread those; I myself
pointed out the problems with your code.

>

Being angry is no way to get help; step away from the keyboard for
a few hours.

Where are you? (I mean, are you having difficulty following the thread?)

No, I just didn't read the attribution line. Mistakes happen. Take them
in stride. :-)

--
Andrew Poelstra <http://www.wpsoftware.net/blog>
To email me, use "apoelstra" at the above address.
"You people hate mathematics." -- James Harris

[Mark McIntyre]

On 4 Jul 2006 13:28:48 -0700, in comp.lang.c , "Suman"
<sk*****@gmail.comwrote:

>
Andrew Poelstra wrote:

>On 2006-07-04, Suman <sk*****@gmail.comwrote:

>
Richard Bos wrote:
"Suman" <sk*****@gmail.comwrote:

[ ...]

><fumes>
I don't understand why you'd need such an analogy, for all _I_ care.

If you reorganize that sentence, you said "For all I care, I don't
understand..." (I didn't change the grammatical meaning whatsoever).

I wanted to know why Richard Bos needed that analogy. Period.

Then you might want to have said that. What you instead said was "I
don't understand why you need that analogy, I don't care". Which makes
no sense!

Slip-ups happen, you'd better take them in stride.

In most cases, it's best to stop and fix slip-ups, especially in
mission-critical code. That isn't what "take in stride" means, just
so you know.

Re-read. For all you know, you might start reading a bit more into my
post.

Frankly, as a native english speaker, I was pretty confused as to what
you meant.

By teh way, if you plan to criticize people's code, you should make
your criticism explicit. "I don't believe you" and "I expect you to be
vigilant" without any supporting evidence does not give anyone any
reason to take your posts seriously.
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

[Denis Kasak]

On 04/07/2006 22:50, Andrew Poelstra wrote:

>
I read some helpful replies, and I read you refusing them. I certainly
can't see how it would be worth my time to go reread those; I myself
pointed out the problems with your code.

If I understood correctly, Suman and the OP are not the same person,
which is what you appear to be assuming. I presume that what Suman was
trying to point out to Richard Bos was that he didn't take into account
that a terminating newline is not being output on the stream in his
example and, therefore, that it is not certain that the output will be
displayed. His declaration of disbelief was probably in reference of
that fact.

--
Denis Kasak

[Suman]

Mark McIntyre wrote:

On 4 Jul 2006 13:28:48 -0700, in comp.lang.c , "Suman"
<sk*****@gmail.comwrote:

Andrew Poelstra wrote:

On 2006-07-04, Suman <sk*****@gmail.comwrote:

Richard Bos wrote:
"Suman" <sk*****@gmail.comwrote:

[ ...]

<fumes>
I don't understand why you'd need such an analogy, for all _I_ care.

If you reorganize that sentence, you said "For all I care, I don't

1understand..." (I didn't change the grammatical meaning
whatsoever).

I wanted to know why Richard Bos needed that analogy. Period.

Then you might want to have said that.

<g>I had to, eventually! </g>

What you instead said was "I don't understand why you need that analogy,
I don't care". Which makes no sense!

Alright! Now I see what went wrong.

Slip-ups happen, you'd better take them in stride.

In most cases, it's best to stop and fix slip-ups, especially in
mission-critical code. That isn't what "take in stride" means, just
so you know.

Re-read. For all you know, you might start reading a bit more into my
post.

Frankly, as a native english speaker, I was pretty confused as to what
you meant.

By teh way, if you plan to criticize people's code, you should make
your criticism explicit.

I didn't mean it to be so. Richard Bos, like most others, has a
penchant for
std-correctness when it comes to C, as far as I have noted. I had meant

my post to be supplementary material to Richard's post. At the same
time I had *tried* to express my surprise at the fact that Richard
missed out
on this. A rather harmless expression of astonishment that went wrong
due to a rather
obtuse (ab-)use of the English language.

"I don't believe you"

See above. Did you miss the link to Ben Pfaff's post?

and "I expect you to be
vigilant" without any supporting evidence does not give anyone any
reason to take your posts seriously.

Richard's reply confused me. I would've appreciated had he put a
easier-to-read
-for-non-native-English-speakers reply and owning up to the fact that
he was
relying on implementation dependant behavior and which in general is
frowned
upon in this newsgroup.

[Richard Heathfield]

Suman said:

<snip>

>
Richard Bos, like most others, has a penchant for std-correctness
when it comes to C,

Yes, and that's good.

<snip>

>
Richard's reply confused me. I would've appreciated had he put a
easier-to-read-for-non-native-English-speakers reply

I hope you appreciate that Richard Bos is not a native English speaker, so
perhaps you should go easy on him. (As far as I'm aware, he's Dutch.)

<snip>

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

[Richard Bos]

"Suman" <sk*****@gmail.comwrote:

Mark McIntyre wrote:

On 4 Jul 2006 13:28:48 -0700, in comp.lang.c , "Suman" <sk*****@gmail.comwrote:

>Re-read. For all you know, you might start reading a bit more into my
>post.

Frankly, as a native english speaker, I was pretty confused as to what
you meant.

By teh way, if you plan to criticize people's code, you should make
your criticism explicit.

I didn't mean it to be so. Richard Bos, like most others, has a penchant for
std-correctness when it comes to C, as far as I have noted. I had meant
my post to be supplementary material to Richard's post. At the same
time I had *tried* to express my surprise at the fact that Richard
missed out on this.

I had not; if you'd read correctly, you'd have noted that I only claimed
what that code did on _my_ system, plus the conclusion we can draw from
that - that it's not that code itself which was at fault.

and "I expect you to be
vigilant" without any supporting evidence does not give anyone any
reason to take your posts seriously.

Richard's reply confused me. I would've appreciated had he put a
easier-to-read-for-non-native-English-speakers reply

You don't read headers much, do you?

and owning up to the fact that

You make it sound like a crime. Don't be so silly.

Richard

[Richard Bos]

Andrew Poelstra <ap*******@localhost.localdomainwrote:

On 2006-07-04, Suman <sk*****@gmail.comwrote:

If you reorganize that sentence, you said "For all I care, I don't
understand..." (I didn't change the grammatical meaning whatsoever).

I wanted to know why Richard Bos needed that analogy. Period.

Which analogy? If you mean the pentagonal earth one, I think he was trying
to help you understand that you can't respond to helpful replies with "I
don't believe you" and expect to be taken seriouly.

Precisely. If Suman wants to disbelieve the plain truth, that's his
problem, not mine.

Richard

[Suman]

Richard Bos wrote:

"Suman" <sk*****@gmail.comwrote:

[...]

Richard's reply confused me. I would've appreciated had he put a
easier-to-read-for-non-native-English-speakers reply

You don't read headers much, do you?

Never, actually. May I ask how relevant that is? The non-native English
speaker part
was a reference to myself. Read the previous sentence.It confused *me*.
So how does my not reading the header fit in here?Seems most people got
me
wrong.

and owning up to the fact that

You make it sound like a crime. Don't be so silly.

You sounded snooty (to me).

[Richard Heathfield]

Suman said:

>
Richard Bos wrote:

>"Suman" <sk*****@gmail.comwrote:

[...]

Richard's reply confused me. I would've appreciated had he put a
easier-to-read-for-non-native-English-speakers reply

You don't read headers much, do you?

Never, actually. May I ask how relevant that is?

Very. It would have given you a hint that Richard Bos is not a native
English-speaker himself, so your criticism of his English style is poorly
aimed.

The non-native English speaker part was a reference to myself.

You are not the only non-native English speaker here. Richard Bos is another
such person.

Read the previous sentence.It confused *me*. So how does my not reading
the header fit in here?

Reading the header would have helped you to learn that Richard Bos is not a
native English-speaker.

Seems most people got me wrong.

Seems you got Richard Bos wrong.

and owning up to the fact that

You make it sound like a crime. Don't be so silly.

You sounded snooty (to me).

Perhaps that's because Richard Bos is not a native English-speaker, and thus
cannot reasonably be held to account for misunderstandings of tone.

In case you haven't worked it out yet, Richard Bos is not a native
English-speaker.

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

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <11**********************@m79g2000cwm.googlegroups .com>,
Suman <sk*****@gmail.comwrote:

>
Richard Bos wrote:

>"Suman" <sk*****@gmail.comwrote:

[...]

Richard's reply confused me. I would've appreciated had he put a
easier-to-read-for-non-native-English-speakers reply

You don't read headers much, do you?

Never, actually. May I ask how relevant that is? The non-native English
speaker part was a reference to myself. Read the previous sentence.It
confused *me*. So how does my not reading the header fit in here?Seems
most people got me wrong.

Well, the logic, such as it is, goes like this. An NNSoE (non-native
speaker of English) makes a comment along the lines of "It is hard for
me, being an NNSoE, to understand what you wrote". This carries an
implication that the prose in question was not as clearly written as it
might have been (*). This, then, causes the friends of the poster (**) of
the prose in question, to gather around and get all upset at the
perceived insult (to the poster of the prose in question). They, then,
will come to the aid of their friend, and one way to do so is to point
out that the poster of the prose in question is an NNSoE and thus cannot
be held to the same standards of grammar/spelling/etc as would an NSoE.
That's what happened here. And, note that in the shuffle of this
process of this circling-of-the-wagons, the fact that the original
reference to an NNSoE was self-referential and not in any sense an
insult, gets lost.

(*) And note that this implication is usually correct.
(**) See, especially, the first URL quoted below.

Useful clc-related links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clique
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspergers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_programming_language

[Richard Bos]

"Suman" <sk*****@gmail.comwrote:

Richard Bos wrote:

"Suman" <sk*****@gmail.comwrote:

[...]

Richard's reply confused me. I would've appreciated had he put a
easier-to-read-for-non-native-English-speakers reply

You don't read headers much, do you?

Never, actually. May I ask how relevant that is?

It's relevant in that it was perfectly easy to read for _me_, also a
non-native speaker of English.

Richard