By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
459,200 Members | 1,568 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 459,200 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

problem abt printf on Turboc

P: n/a
Hello all ,
I need a help on this code
kindly help me out
for the below code I worked on the Turboc
the result I was expecting was different from what has been printed I
have indicated the line with " /*this one*/" line no 10
I did expected some junk for the first %ld and 6553 for the second %d
,but it printed in different way I am also pasting the result printed ,
it is below the code .
I am totally confused because I got one answer that was it depends on
compiler but I am not satisfied .can any body kind hearted people help
me with proper explanation

thanks and regards

/*code */

1 int main(void)
2 {
3 unsigned int un = 3000000000; /* system with 32-bit int */
4 short end = 200; /* and 16-bit short */
5 unsigned int big = 6553;
6 long long verybig = 12345678908642;
7 clrscr();
8 printf("un = %u and not %d\n", un, un);
9 printf("end = %hd and %d\n", end, end);
10 printf("big = %ld and not %d\n", big,big); /*this one */
11 printf("verybig= %lld and not %ld\n", verybig, verybig);
12 getch();
13 return 0;
14 }
the Output is below

un = 24064 and not 24064
end = 200 and 200
big = 429463961 and not 996 /* <-why it is 996 whynot 6553*/
verybig= 1942899938 and not 1942899938

Nov 14 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
31 Replies


P: n/a
mu************@hotmail.com wrote:

Thought I'd try blending in ... ;-)
Hello all ,
I need a help on this code
kindly help me out
for the below code I worked on the Turboc
the result I was expecting was different from what has been printed I
have indicated the line with " /*this one*/" line no 10
I did expected some junk for the first %ld and 6553 for the second %d
,but it printed in different way I am also pasting the result printed ,
it is below the code .
I am totally confused because I got one answer that was it depends on
compiler but I am not satisfied .can any body kind hearted people help
me with proper explanation

thanks and regards

/*code */

1 int main(void)
2 {
3 unsigned int un = 3000000000; /* system with 32-bit int */
4 short end = 200; /* and 16-bit short */
5 unsigned int big = 6553;
6 long long verybig = 12345678908642;
<error message="OT in c.l.c" cause="Not ISO C"
redirect="borland.public.cpp.turbocpp">
7 clrscr();
</error>
8 printf("un = %u and not %d\n", un, un);
9 printf("end = %hd and %d\n", end, end);
10 printf("big = %ld and not %d\n", big,big); /*this one */
11 printf("verybig= %lld and not %ld\n", verybig, verybig);
12 getch();
13 return 0;
14 }
the Output is below

un = 24064 and not 24064
end = 200 and 200
big = 429463961 and not 996 /* <-why it is 996 whynot 6553*/
verybig= 1942899938 and not 1942899938

Nov 14 '05 #2

P: n/a
I didnt get you
if it is any error please comment the lines "clrscr()" and "getch()"
thanks

Nov 14 '05 #3

P: n/a


mu************@hotmail.com wrote:
I didnt get you
if it is any error please comment the lines "clrscr()" and "getch()"


Please ignore "Eltee". He/she/it is a newly acquired troll round here.

- Michael
--
E-Mail: Mine is a gmx dot de address.

Nov 14 '05 #4

P: n/a


mu************@hotmail.com wrote:
Hello all ,
I need a help on this code
kindly help me out
for the below code I worked on the Turboc
the result I was expecting was different from what has been printed I
have indicated the line with " /*this one*/" line no 10
I did expected some junk for the first %ld and 6553 for the second %d
,but it printed in different way I am also pasting the result printed ,
it is below the code .
I am totally confused because I got one answer that was it depends on
compiler but I am not satisfied .can any body kind hearted people help
me with proper explanation

thanks and regards

/*code */
0a #include <stdio.h>
1 int main(void)
2 {
3 unsigned int un = 3000000000; /* system with 32-bit int */
4 short end = 200; /* and 16-bit short */
5 unsigned int big = 6553;
6 long long verybig = 12345678908642;
7 clrscr(); 7 printf("\v\v\v"); 8 printf("un = %u and not %d\n", un, un);
9 printf("end = %hd and %d\n", end, end);
10 printf("big = %ld and not %d\n", big,big); /*this one */
11 printf("verybig= %lld and not %ld\n", verybig, verybig);
12 getch(); 13 getchar(); 13 return 0;
14 }
the Output is below

un = 24064 and not 24064
end = 200 and 200
big = 429463961 and not 996 /* <-why it is 996 whynot 6553*/
verybig= 1942899938 and not 1942899938


Are you sure about the size of your data types?
I would rather use

0b #include <limits.h>

and initialise the variables accordingly:

3 unsigned in un = UINT_MAX - 1;
6 long long verybig = LLONG_MAX;

This is portable.

Another thing: If long int is a wider data type than int,
then the arguments of printf() are evaluated wrongly in line 10.
In addition, I would either output unsigned int or make big signed
int:

10 printf("big = %u and not %lu\n", big,big); /*this one */
As to the problems with long long:
Are you sure that your compiler is C99 compliant?
Try
0c #ifndef __STDC_VERSION__
0d # error Error: __STDC_VERSION__ not defined
0e #elif __STDC_VERSION__ < 199901L
0d # error Error: Not C99 compliant
0f #endif
Another thing: Maybe your standard library printf() does not
support long long.
Cheers
Michael
--
E-Mail: Mine is a gmx dot de address.

Nov 14 '05 #5

P: n/a
On 29 Dec 2004 04:48:53 -0800, in comp.lang.c , mu************@hotmail.com
wrote:
I am totally confused because I got one answer that was it depends on
compiler but I am not satisfied .can any body kind hearted people help
me with proper explanation


You're lying to the compiler. The format string you pass to printf must
match the type of the variables passed. Otherwise the results will be
garbage. Note also that the size of short, int, long and long long depend
on the compiler and OS. so sometimes you'll get lucky, and using the wrong
specifier will 'work'.

If you want to know *exactly* why its 996 not 6553, the answer lies in the
bitpattern of how your Compiler or OS stores numbers. Thats offtopic here
and would be different on each different OS.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
Nov 14 '05 #6

P: n/a
mu************@hotmail.com wrote:
I didnt get you
if it is any error please comment the lines "clrscr()" and "getch()"
thanks


The thing is that your code is not ISO C, and that makes it waaaaaaaaaaaay off
topic in this NG. Maybe if you post the question to borland.public.cpp.turbocpp,
you'd get proper help there.
Nov 14 '05 #7

P: n/a
Mark McIntyre wrote:
Thats offtopic here


See? Toldya! ;-)
Nov 14 '05 #8

P: n/a
Michael Mair wrote:


mu************@hotmail.com wrote:
I didnt get you
if it is any error please comment the lines "clrscr()" and "getch()"

Please ignore "Eltee". He/she/it is a newly acquired troll round here.


That would be "it", Michael. Thanks for your concern.

As for the "newly acquired troll" ... well, like I said, just trying to blend
in. After a week of semi-lurking I realized that if there's a hint of a chance
of your problem not being well within the limits of ISO C specification, what
you're supposed to get is, in a word, "buggeroff". That's my impression, anyway.
Still learning, though. ;-)
Nov 14 '05 #9

P: n/a
Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> wrote:
mu************@hotmail.com wrote:

Thought I'd try blending in ... ;-)


You fail to do so.
1 int main(void)
2 {
3 unsigned int un = 3000000000; /* system with 32-bit int */
4 short end = 200; /* and 16-bit short */
5 unsigned int big = 6553;
6 long long verybig = 12345678908642;


<error message="OT in c.l.c" cause="Not ISO C"
redirect="borland.public.cpp.turbocpp">
7 clrscr();


</error>


You are an imbecile, and intentionally so to boot. It is immediately
obvious to anyone who knows C at all that the problem is not with that
line...
8 printf("un = %u and not %d\n", un, un);
9 printf("end = %hd and %d\n", end, end);
10 printf("big = %ld and not %d\n", big,big); /*this one */
11 printf("verybig= %lld and not %ld\n", verybig, verybig);


....but with these. The OP is invoking undefined behaviour by sending
printf() variables of a type it doesn't expect. This has nothing to do
with Turbo C at all; it would be a bug under any implementation. The
only thing that's Turbo-C-specific about this is the precise result of
this UB; IOW, only the specific output is Turbo-dependent, not the fact
that the output is not as expected.

Richard
Nov 14 '05 #10

P: n/a
Richard Bos wrote:
Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> wrote:

mu************@hotmail.com wrote:

Thought I'd try blending in ... ;-)

You fail to do so.


Oops! Back to the drawing board. :-|
Nov 14 '05 #11

P: n/a
Eltee wrote:
Mark McIntyre wrote:
Thats offtopic here


See? Toldya! ;-)


*sigh* You quoted out of context; Mark did not say anything
about the stuff _you_ saw as making the whole thing offtopic.

Moreover, he gave an answer to the _topical_ problem the OP
encountered.
The only thing which he marked OT was the platform-specific
representation of integers.

But I guess you will just "semi-lurk" a while longer without
being helpful or topical at all. *PLONK*
-Michael
--
E-Mail: Mine is a gmx dot de address.

Nov 14 '05 #12

P: n/a
Michael Mair wrote:
Eltee wrote:
Mark McIntyre wrote:
Thats offtopic here

See? Toldya! ;-)

*sigh* You quoted out of context;


I was trying to be ironic. In my first reply in this thread as well as in reply
to your post.
Mark did not say anything
about the stuff _you_ saw as making the whole thing offtopic.

Moreover, he gave an answer to the _topical_ problem the OP
encountered.
The only thing which he marked OT was the platform-specific
representation of integers.

But I guess you will just "semi-lurk" a while longer without
being helpful or topical at all. *PLONK*


Oh puh-lease fer-tha-luv-o'-gawd, not a *PLONK*! Is it for life or am I eligible
for a parole in, say, 10 to 15? >:->

Being the holiday season an' awl, I'm going to go with it and not retaliate. So,
Michael, have a happy new year and ...read you soon. ;-)
Nov 14 '05 #13

P: n/a
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 16:31:34 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Eltee
<el***@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mark McIntyre wrote:
Thats offtopic here


See? Toldya! ;-)


You have added exactly zero to this thread, apart from fuckwittedness. If
you must fiddle with your plonker please do it in private, nobody here
thinks its big or clever.

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
Nov 14 '05 #14

P: n/a
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 18:03:52 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Eltee
<el***@hotmail.com> wrote:
Michael Mair wrote:
Eltee wrote:
Mark McIntyre wrote:

Thats offtopic here

See? Toldya! ;-)


*sigh* You quoted out of context;


I was trying to be ironic. In my first reply in this thread as well as in reply
to your post.


Your past record of stupid posts works against you. I believe you were
warned about this and yet insisted on your right to be a fool.
But I guess you will just "semi-lurk" a while longer without
being helpful or topical at all. *PLONK*


Oh puh-lease fer-tha-luv-o'-gawd, not a *PLONK*!


Irony aside, its your loss if you get plonked by the regulars.

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
Nov 14 '05 #15

P: n/a
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 16:29:41 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Eltee
<el***@hotmail.com> wrote:
mu************@hotmail.com wrote:
I didnt get you
if it is any error please comment the lines "clrscr()" and "getch()"
thanks


The thing is that your code is not ISO C, and that makes it waaaaaaaaaaaay off
topic in this NG. Maybe if you post the question to borland.public.cpp.turbocpp,
you'd get proper help there.


His code is NOT nonstandard, aside from a couple of fns which we can
ignore.
Neither is his problem nonstandard, though detailed explanation of why the
value is 996 is.

So your answer is Wrong in just about every respect.

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
Nov 14 '05 #16

P: n/a
hello Micheal
well i inserted the lines you shown here
/* #ifndef __STDC_VERSION__
0d # error Error: __STDC_VERSION__ not defined
0e #elif __STDC_VERSION__ < 199901L
0d # error Error: Not C99 compliant
0f #endif
*/

and compiler says __stdc_Version not defined
seems my compiler is not c99 complaint
thats ok
thanks for your help
Happy new year
bye

Nov 14 '05 #17

P: n/a
Hi Mark

If you want to know *exactly* why its 996 not 6553, >the answer lies in thebitpattern of how your Compiler or OS stores >numbers. Thats offtopic hereand would be different on each different OS


thats what i actually wanted because i am not changing any thing there
i m just printing it in decimal and the number is also in the limits ie
(-32767 - +3768)
..Do you mean to say any "ENDIAN" problem here
please reply
thanks

Nov 14 '05 #18

P: n/a
Mark McIntyre wrote:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 16:29:41 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Eltee
<el***@hotmail.com> wrote:

mu************@hotmail.com wrote:
I didnt get you
if it is any error please comment the lines "clrscr()" and "getch()"
thanks

The thing is that your code is not ISO C, and that makes it waaaaaaaaaaaay off
topic in this NG. Maybe if you post the question to borland.public.cpp.turbocpp,
you'd get proper help there.

His code is NOT nonstandard, aside from a couple of fns which we can
ignore.


But "we" can't ignore a couple of fns in my (quasi?)C code I posted not long
ago? Hm. (Note to self: Borland good, Microsoft bad.)
Neither is his problem nonstandard, though detailed explanation of why the
value is 996 is.

So your answer is Wrong in just about every respect.


Just about every != every.
Nov 14 '05 #19

P: n/a
Mark McIntyre wrote:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 18:03:52 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Eltee
<el***@hotmail.com> wrote:

Michael Mair wrote:
Eltee wrote:
Mark McIntyre wrote:
>Thats offtopic here

See? Toldya! ;-)

*sigh* You quoted out of context;


I was trying to be ironic. In my first reply in this thread as well as in reply
to your post.

Your past record of stupid posts works against you. I believe you were
warned about this and yet insisted on your right to be a fool.


Right. 'tis a free country, innit?
But I guess you will just "semi-lurk" a while longer without
being helpful or topical at all. *PLONK*


Oh puh-lease fer-tha-luv-o'-gawd, not a *PLONK*!

Irony aside, its your loss if you get plonked by the regulars.


Anything else?
Nov 14 '05 #20

P: n/a
Mark McIntyre wrote:
On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 16:31:34 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Eltee
<el***@hotmail.com> wrote:

Mark McIntyre wrote:

Thats offtopic here
See? Toldya! ;-)

You have added exactly zero to this thread, apart from fuckwittedness.


No, that's your contribution.
If
you must fiddle with your plonker please do it in private, nobody here
thinks its big or clever.


I'm not after your (or anybody elses) opinion. I'm not trying to look clever either.
Nov 14 '05 #21

P: n/a
Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> writes:
[...]
I'm not after your (or anybody elses) opinion. I'm not trying to
look clever either.


Then what on Earth *are* you trying to do? Are you just trolling, or
is there more to it than that?

--
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.
Nov 14 '05 #22

P: n/a
Gentlemen ,It seems we are off topic
thanks and regards

Nov 14 '05 #23

P: n/a
Keith Thompson wrote:
Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> writes:
[...]
I'm not after your (or anybody elses) opinion. I'm not trying to
look clever either.

Then what on Earth *are* you trying to do? Are you just trolling, or
is there more to it than that?


Just trolling, yes. I'm a sinner, I admit. The flesh is weak what can I say. >:-)E)

I was taken a back reading the first few replies to my original post (and all
the "lectures" why I deserved them). Reading some other posts which, by the same
standards, should be dismissed like mine but weren't, I concluded that the
"wisemen" of this NG are trying to patronize a newcomer like me. As I don't like
to be patronized I guess I succumbed to the overpowering appeal of vengeance ;-)
and posted some stuff that shouldn't be posted.

Does that qualify as "more to it"?
Nov 14 '05 #24

P: n/a
mu************@hotmail.com wrote on 29/12/04 :
1 int main(void)
2 {
3 unsigned int un = 3000000000; /* system with 32-bit int */
4 short end = 200; /* and 16-bit short */
5 unsigned int big = 6553;
6 long long verybig = 12345678908642;
7 clrscr();
8 printf("un = %u and not %d\n", un, un);
9 printf("end = %hd and %d\n", end, end);
10 printf("big = %ld and not %d\n", big,big); /*this one */
11 printf("verybig= %lld and not %ld\n", verybig, verybig);
12 getch();
13 return 0;
14 }


Turbo C is a 16-bit C90 compiler.

You should work harder on the types you passed to printf(). They must
match. The cast is not a option.

#include <stdio.h>
#define C99 0

int main (void)
{
unsigned long un = 3000000000UL;
short end = 200; /* and 16-bit short */
unsigned int big = 6553;

#if C99
/* not supported by C90 */
long long verybig = 12345678908642;
#endif

printf ("un = %u and not %d\n", (unsigned) un, (int) un);
printf ("end = %hd and %d\n", (short) end, (int) end);
printf ("big = %ld and not %d\n", (long) big, (int) big); /*this
one */
#if C99
/* not supported by C90 */
printf ("verybig= %lld and not %ld\n", (long long) verybig, (long)
verybig);
#endif

puts ("Press <enter> to quit");
(void) getchar ();
return 0;
}

--
Emmanuel
The C-FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/faq.html
The C-library: http://www.dinkumware.com/refxc.html

"Clearly your code does not meet the original spec."
"You are sentenced to 30 lashes with a wet noodle."
-- Jerry Coffin in a.l.c.c++

Nov 14 '05 #25

P: n/a
mu************@hotmail.com wrote:
for the below code I worked on the Turboc
the result I was expecting was different from what has been printed I
have indicated the line with " /*this one*/" line no 10
I did expected some junk for the first %ld and 6553 for the second %d
,but it printed in different way I am also pasting the result printed ,
it is below the code .
...
/*code */

1 int main(void)
2 {
3 unsigned int un = 3000000000; /* system with 32-bit int */
4 short end = 200; /* and 16-bit short */
5 unsigned int big = 6553;
6 long long verybig = 12345678908642;
7 clrscr();
8 printf("un = %u and not %d\n", un, un);
9 printf("end = %hd and %d\n", end, end);
10 printf("big = %ld and not %d\n", big,big); /*this one */
11 printf("verybig= %lld and not %ld\n", verybig, verybig);
12 getch();
13 return 0;
14 }

the Output is below

un = 24064 and not 24064
end = 200 and 200
big = 429463961 and not 996 /* <-why it is 996 whynot 6553*/
verybig= 1942899938 and not 1942899938


Your assumption "system with 32-bit int" is erroneous. Your compilation
system uses 16-bit (unsigned) int.
Nov 14 '05 #26

P: n/a
Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> writes:
Keith Thompson wrote:
Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> writes:
[...]
I'm not after your (or anybody elses) opinion. I'm not trying to
look clever either.

Then what on Earth *are* you trying to do? Are you just trolling, or
is there more to it than that?


Just trolling, yes. I'm a sinner, I admit. The flesh is weak what can I say. >:-)E)

I was taken a back reading the first few replies to my original post
(and all the "lectures" why I deserved them). Reading some other posts
which, by the same standards, should be dismissed like mine but
weren't, I concluded that the "wisemen" of this NG are trying to
patronize a newcomer like me. As I don't like to be patronized I guess
I succumbed to the overpowering appeal of vengeance ;-)
and posted some stuff that shouldn't be posted.

Does that qualify as "more to it"?


Not really. My advice is to post a brief followup saying that you
intend to stop trolling, and then actually stop trolling. (The first
part is optional, I suppose.) Or you can just go away. If you have
something to say about C, you're welcome here. Unfortunately you're
probably already in a lot of the regulars' killfiles, so your
opportunities for participation are limited.

And if you think I'm being patronizing, well that's just too bad.

--
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.
Nov 14 '05 #27

P: n/a
mu************@hotmail.com wrote:

1 int main(void)
2 {
3 unsigned int un = 3000000000; /* system with 32-bit int */
4 short end = 200; /* and 16-bit short */
5 unsigned int big = 6553;
6 long long verybig = 12345678908642;
7 clrscr();
8 printf("un = %u and not %d\n", un, un);
9 printf("end = %hd and %d\n", end, end);
10 printf("big = %ld and not %d\n", big,big); /*this one */
11 printf("verybig= %lld and not %ld\n", verybig, verybig);
12 getch();
13 return 0;
14 } big = 429463961 and not 996 /* <-why it is 996 whynot 6553*/


(Note, the following is all specific to your system. In
general you caused undefined behaviour by using the wrong
specifiers for printf).

You are on a 16-bit system. You passed 2 16-bit parameters to
the variadic function printf: 0x1999 0x1999. printf sees "%ld"
so it reads 32 bits from its parameters: 0x19991999 , which
is 429463961 in decimal. Then it sees "%d" so it reads 16
more bits from the list (and gets garbage).
If you wrote: printf("%ld %d\n", big, big, big) you would
probably see 429463961 6553.

If you don't believe that you're on a 16 bit system:
#include <limits.h>
......
printf("int is %d bits\n", (int) (sizeof(int) * CHAR_BIT) );

Nov 14 '05 #28

P: n/a
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 09:19:15 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Eltee
<el***@hotmail.com> wrote:
Mark McIntyre wrote:
His code is NOT nonstandard, aside from a couple of fns which we can
ignore.


But "we" can't ignore a couple of fns in my (quasi?)C code I posted not long
ago? Hm.


Unlike the question in this thread, your question was itself offtopic. If
you can't discern the difference, you need a better brain.
So your answer is Wrong in just about every respect.


Just about every != every.


Feel free to grasp at the tiny straws.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Nov 14 '05 #29

P: n/a
On 29 Dec 2004 20:36:58 -0800, in comp.lang.c , mu************@hotmail.com
wrote:
Hi Mark
If you want to know *exactly* why its 996 not 6553, >the answer lies in the
bitpattern of how your Compiler or OS stores >numbers. Thats offtopic here
and would be different on each different OS
thats what i actually wanted because i am not changing any thing there
i m just printing it in decimal and the number is also in the limits ie
(-32767 - +3768)


You lied to the compiler - you told it (for example) the value was an int
when it was a long int, and so it will have grabbed the wrong number of
bits.
.Do you mean to say any "ENDIAN" problem here


This is precisely the detail thats offtopic. You'd need to ask in a borland
group as frankly I have no idea how borland's compiler processes data that
overflows the allowed space. It may be to do with which end of the set of
bits the compiler interpreted as an int, or it may not.

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Nov 14 '05 #30

P: n/a
On Thu, 30 Dec 2004 12:13:29 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Eltee
<el***@hotmail.com> wrote:
Keith Thompson wrote:
Eltee <el***@hotmail.com> writes:
[...]
Then what on Earth *are* you trying to do? Are you just trolling, or
is there more to it than that?


standards, should be dismissed like mine but weren't, I concluded that the
"wisemen" of this NG are trying to patronize a newcomer like me. As I don't like
to be patronized I guess I succumbed to the overpowering appeal of vengeance ;-)


Then you're a complete idiot. Grow up, stop being such a baby.

*plonk*

--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Nov 14 '05 #31

P: n/a
Hi OldWolf

Thanks for your reply
Happy new year
bye

Nov 14 '05 #32

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.