how can I test for backspace if( (c = getchar()) == '\b' )

[G Patel]

Hi,

I would like to write a program that checks to see if the user has hit
backspace (so the program can go back to a previous stage).

How would I test for this?

I tried if( (c = getchar()) == '\b' ) but this doesn't work.

It's as if '\b' is not allowed to come into stdin. So how else can I
check for backspace?

Any help would be great :-)

[Jack Klein]

On 9 Feb 2005 17:40:25 -0800, "G Patel" <ga********@gmail.com> wrote
in comp.lang.c:

Hi,

I would like to write a program that checks to see if the user has hit
backspace (so the program can go back to a previous stage).

How would I test for this?

I tried if( (c = getchar()) == '\b' ) but this doesn't work.

It's as if '\b' is not allowed to come into stdin. So how else can I
check for backspace?

Any help would be great :-)

You probably can't, in standard C, when stdin is connected to an
interactive device like a serial terminal or a console window.

The C library calls the system's driver, which in the case of
interactive user devices is generally line buffered, that is lower
level code handles things like back space in an entry itself, and only
transmits the full input to your program when the user presses the
enter or return key.

The only way to do this is to use some non-standard extension, if your
compiler and OS provide one, to get raw input.

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~a...FAQ-acllc.html

[Walter Roberson]

In article <vi********************************@4ax.com>,
Jack Klein <ja*******@spamcop.net> wrote:
:On 9 Feb 2005 17:40:25 -0800, "G Patel" <ga********@gmail.com> wrote
:> It's as if '\b' is not allowed to come into stdin. So how else can I
:> check for backspace?

:The only way to do this is to use some non-standard extension, if your
:compiler and OS provide one, to get raw input.

Or you could use the standard extensions provided by POSIX.1
such as tcgetattr() and tcsetattr()
--
"The human genome is powerless in the face of chocolate."
-- Dr. Adam Drewnowski

[G Patel]

Jack Klein wrote:

On 9 Feb 2005 17:40:25 -0800, "G Patel" <ga********@gmail.com> wrote

It's as if '\b' is not allowed to come into stdin. So how else can I check for backspace?

Any help would be great :-)

You probably can't, in standard C, when stdin is connected to an
interactive device like a serial terminal or a console window.

The C library calls the system's driver, which in the case of
interactive user devices is generally line buffered, that is lower
level code handles things like back space in an entry itself, and

only transmits the full input to your program when the user presses the
enter or return key.

The only way to do this is to use some non-standard extension, if your compiler and OS provide one, to get raw input.

Thanks for your help. I was so frustrated that I couldn't get \b into
stdin especially when K&R2 had a supposedly "easy" exercise that asked
me to check for \b. Without newsgroups like clc, I would still been
trying :-)

Thanks Jack And Walter

[Richard Bos]

"G Patel" <ga********@gmail.com> wrote:

Jack Klein wrote:

On 9 Feb 2005 17:40:25 -0800, "G Patel" <ga********@gmail.com> wrote

The C library calls the system's driver, which in the case of
interactive user devices is generally line buffered, that is lower
level code handles things like back space in an entry itself, and only
transmits the full input to your program when the user presses the
enter or return key.

Thanks for your help. I was so frustrated that I couldn't get \b into
stdin especially when K&R2 had a supposedly "easy" exercise that asked
me to check for \b. Without newsgroups like clc, I would still been
trying :-)

Note that K&R are not being silly, and Jack's answer is incomplete. For
input to stdin that comes from the keyboard, he is quite correct.
However, on most systems you can also have your program get standard
input from a file, or from another program (for example, using the
syntax "program <file", or "program1 | program2"); and in those cases,
it is quite possible to see a '\b' on stdin.

Richard

[Mark McIntyre]

On 10 Feb 2005 02:54:58 GMT, in comp.lang.c , ro******@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
(Walter Roberson) wrote:

In article <vi********************************@4ax.com>,
Jack Klein <ja*******@spamcop.net> wrote:
:On 9 Feb 2005 17:40:25 -0800, "G Patel" <ga********@gmail.com> wrote
:> It's as if '\b' is not allowed to come into stdin. So how else can I
:> check for backspace?

:The only way to do this is to use some non-standard extension, if your
:compiler and OS provide one, to get raw input.

Or you could use the standard extensions provided by POSIX.1
such as tcgetattr() and tcsetattr()

Yes, but they're not Standard C, they're Posix, and may not exist on all
platforms of interest.

Since the topic of this group is standard C, its worth making such
distinctions very clear.

--
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 =----

[Walter Roberson]

In article <ar********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:
|On 10 Feb 2005 02:54:58 GMT, in comp.lang.c , ro******@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
|(Walter Roberson) wrote:

|>In article <vi********************************@4ax.com>,
|>Jack Klein <ja*******@spamcop.net> wrote:

|>:The only way to do this is to use some non-standard extension, if your
|>:compiler and OS provide one, to get raw input.

|>Or you could use the standard extensions provided by POSIX.1
|>such as tcgetattr() and tcsetattr()

|Yes, but they're not Standard C, they're Posix, and may not exist on all
|platforms of interest.

True.
|Since the topic of this group is standard C, its worth making such
|distinctions very clear.

Jack did, though, say that the "only" way is to use
some "non-standard extension". POSIX.1 is a -standard- extension,
not a non-standard extension.

We see lots of postings from people using basic C I/O operations
such as printf() even though those "may not exist on all platforms
of interest" in a standard-compliant C implimentation. It doesn't
hurt us to admit that very few programs are written in the portion
of C that is certain to exist on any compliant implimentation.
--
Most Windows users will run any old attachment you send them, so if
you want to implicate someone you can just send them a Trojan
-- Adam Langley

[Chris Croughton]

On 9 Feb 2005 17:40:25 -0800, G Patel
<ga********@gmail.com> wrote:

I would like to write a program that checks to see if the user has hit
backspace (so the program can go back to a previous stage).

How would I test for this?

I tried if( (c = getchar()) == '\b' ) but this doesn't work.

It's as if '\b' is not allowed to come into stdin. So how else can I
check for backspace?

Any help would be great :-)

By default most systems are line-buffered, with the OS interpreting
backspace (and cursor keys) before the line gets anywhere near the
program. You need to investigate ways of getting individual keys from
your OS (on Unix this can be done with the stty(1) program, or by
issuing ioctl(2) calls, I have no idea about Windows or other systems;
or (again mostly for Unix-like systems) you could look at (n)curses
library).

It's not possible in a portable way, anyway...

Chris C

[Mike Wahler]

"Walter Roberson" <ro******@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> wrote in message
news:cu**********@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca...

In article <ar********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:
|On 10 Feb 2005 02:54:58 GMT, in comp.lang.c , ro******@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
|(Walter Roberson) wrote:

|>In article <vi********************************@4ax.com>,
|>Jack Klein <ja*******@spamcop.net> wrote:

|>:The only way to do this is to use some non-standard extension, if your
|>:compiler and OS provide one, to get raw input.

|>Or you could use the standard extensions provided by POSIX.1
|>such as tcgetattr() and tcsetattr()

|Yes, but they're not Standard C, they're Posix, and may not exist on all
|platforms of interest.

True.
|Since the topic of this group is standard C, its worth making such
|distinctions very clear.

Jack did, though, say that the "only" way is to use
some "non-standard extension".
His assertion is correct (as usual).
POSIX.1 is a -standard- extension,
The ISO C standard does not define 'standard extensions'.
(However, it does enumerate certain 'common extensions'
in an informative (i.e. non-normative) section).

In the context of comp.lang.c, "standard" means "ISO
standard C", not any other standards. POSIX is not
part of standard C. It's a separate standard, and
afaik doesn't even require the language used with it
to be C.

ASCII is a standard. So is JPEG. Etc. etc. Should we
include those in our definition of standard C as well?
Where does it end?
We see lots of postings from people using basic C I/O operations
such as printf() even though those "may not exist on all platforms
of interest" in a standard-compliant C implimentation.
They must exist in a compliant hosted implementation.

The functions declared by <stdio.h> are indeed part of
standard C, but are not required to be supplied by a
freestanding implementation. "Standard, but optional
in some contexts" is not the same as "non-standard".
Don't confuse the language with implementation.
It doesn't
hurt us to admit that very few programs are written in the portion
of C that is certain to exist on any compliant implimentation.

I don't see anyone refusing to admit that. But the parts of
programs which are not ISO standard C are not topical for
comp.lang.c

I integrate nonstandard (r.e. C) additions (some of them
are defined by other standards) to my C programs almost
always. But I don't discuss them here, because they're
not topical here.
-Mike

[Mark McIntyre]

On 10 Feb 2005 16:53:52 GMT, in comp.lang.c , ro******@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
(Walter Roberson) wrote:

Jack did, though, say that the "only" way is to use
some "non-standard extension". POSIX.1 is a -standard- extension,
not a non-standard extension.
No, its not.

Or at least, its only a standard extension in the same sense that the
extension under my desk is a standard one because it complies with teh BS
relating to electrical safety for extension cables. Both comply with some
standard. Neither complies with THE Standard that defines C. Ergo, both are
definitionally nonstandard as far as C is concerned.
We see lots of postings from people using basic C I/O operations
such as printf() even though those "may not exist on all platforms
of interest" in a standard-compliant C implimentation.
printf is required to exist on all hosted implementations.
It doesn't
hurt us to admit that very few programs are written in the portion
of C that is certain to exist on any compliant implimentation.

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

[Jack Klein]

On Thu, 10 Feb 2005 08:31:12 GMT, rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard
Bos) wrote in comp.lang.c:

"G Patel" <ga********@gmail.com> wrote:

Jack Klein wrote:

On 9 Feb 2005 17:40:25 -0800, "G Patel" <ga********@gmail.com> wrote

The C library calls the system's driver, which in the case of
interactive user devices is generally line buffered, that is lower
level code handles things like back space in an entry itself, and only
transmits the full input to your program when the user presses the
enter or return key.

Thanks for your help. I was so frustrated that I couldn't get \b into
stdin especially when K&R2 had a supposedly "easy" exercise that asked
me to check for \b. Without newsgroups like clc, I would still been
trying :-)

Note that K&R are not being silly, and Jack's answer is incomplete. For
input to stdin that comes from the keyboard, he is quite correct.
However, on most systems you can also have your program get standard
input from a file, or from another program (for example, using the
syntax "program <file", or "program1 | program2"); and in those cases,
it is quite possible to see a '\b' on stdin.

Richard

How was it incomplete? In the OP's original post, which you did not
quote, G Patel specifically asked:
I would like to write a program that checks to see if the user has hit
^^^ backspace (so the program can go back to a previous stage). ^^^^^^^^^

Specifically in the context of interactive user input from a keyboard.

And I very clearly limited my reply to that context, with what seem to
me to be suitable disclaimers. In part of my reply that you did not
quote:
You probably can't, in standard C, when stdin is connected to an ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ interactive device like a serial terminal or a console window.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^

And again, in the part of my reply that you did quote:

The C library calls the system's driver, which in the case of ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ interactive user devices is generally line buffered, that is lower

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I certainly don't mind being corrected if I am wrong, which happens
often enough, or clarified if I am misleading.

But how could I have been more explicit about the fact that my reply,
like the OP's question, was specific to interactive user input to
stdin from a keyboard? Discussing what the OP could do when stdin was
coming from a file was irrelevant to his need.

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~a...FAQ-acllc.html

[Fao, Sean]

Walter Roberson wrote:

In article <ar********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:
|On 10 Feb 2005 02:54:58 GMT, in comp.lang.c , ro******@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
|(Walter Roberson) wrote:

|>In article <vi********************************@4ax.com>,
|>Jack Klein <ja*******@spamcop.net> wrote:

|>:The only way to do this is to use some non-standard extension, if your
|>:compiler and OS provide one, to get raw input.

|>Or you could use the standard extensions provided by POSIX.1
|>such as tcgetattr() and tcsetattr()

|Yes, but they're not Standard C, they're Posix, and may not exist on all
|platforms of interest.

True.
|Since the topic of this group is standard C, its worth making such
|distinctions very clear.

Jack did, though, say that the "only" way is to use
some "non-standard extension". POSIX.1 is a -standard- extension,
not a non-standard extension.

We see lots of postings from people using basic C I/O operations
such as printf() even though those "may not exist on all platforms
of interest" in a standard-compliant C implimentation. It doesn't
hurt us to admit that very few programs are written in the portion
of C that is certain to exist on any compliant implimentation.

The debate on what should/shouldn't be topical on comp.lang.c has been
argued thousands of times and the general consensus of this group has
*never* changed. Why must people continue to throw out the debate as if
it were some ingenious idea that's never before been discussed?

--
Sean

[Walter Roberson]

In article <0J*************@news.abs.net>,
Fao, Sean <en**********@yahoo.comI-WANT-NO-SPAM> wrote:
:Walter Roberson wrote:
:> It doesn't
:> hurt us to admit that very few programs are written in the portion
:> of C that is certain to exist on any compliant implimentation.

:The debate on what should/shouldn't be topical on comp.lang.c has been
:argued thousands of times and the general consensus of this group has
:*never* changed. Why must people continue to throw out the debate as if
:it were some ingenious idea that's never before been discussed?

I would say that there are several answers to that.

The first answer would be that a continued demand for discussion
on the topic indicates that there is an unmet need "in the market"
for discussions about C in contexts that lie -somewhere- between
the limits of freestanding implimentations and operating
system specific. There isn't necessarily one "right" cutoff point
in this: it could be that more than one new newsgroup should be
the result.

The second answer would be that comp.lang.c has no newsgroup
charter and its existance proceeds *any* of the standardizations
that its current denizens insist on. If the newsgroup is really
to be repurposed to only discussing programs whose behaviour
is well-defined by one of the C standards, then according to
Usenet traditions, that repurposing needs to be put out to
an RFD, possibly followed by a CFV.

The third answer would be that I have been answering questions in
technical newsgroups and LISTSERVs and mailing lists and such since
before Usenet escaped from Universities, but I have never before
encountered a technical newsgroup that has been so narrow-minded
and hair-splitting about what the cliques deem discussible or
not. Even the *advocacy groups, with their many more flames,
allow a much broader list of topics. It's like the
[hypothetical] newsgroup sci.ice deciding it will only discuss
river ice, and saying that ocean ice, pack ice, glaciers, frost,
ice-fog, and the frozen gasses such as CO2 ice, are all off topic
because the formation of those is "situation dependant".
It seems to me that there is room and call for a newsgroup, perhaps
"comp.lang.c.portable", perhaps some other name, that allows
discussion of C programs which are intended to fit within well-
defined international standards such as the IEC/ISO standards,
including POSIX.*.
--
Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million
typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare. -- Blair Houghton.

[Alan Balmer]

On 11 Feb 2005 16:02:28 GMT, ro******@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter
Roberson) wrote:

In article <0J*************@news.abs.net>,
Fao, Sean <en**********@yahoo.comI-WANT-NO-SPAM> wrote:
:Walter Roberson wrote:
:> It doesn't
:> hurt us to admit that very few programs are written in the portion
:> of C that is certain to exist on any compliant implimentation.

:The debate on what should/shouldn't be topical on comp.lang.c has been
:argued thousands of times and the general consensus of this group has
:*never* changed. Why must people continue to throw out the debate as if
:it were some ingenious idea that's never before been discussed?

I would say that there are several answers to that.

The first answer would be that a continued demand for discussion
on the topic indicates that there is an unmet need "in the market"
for discussions about C in contexts that lie -somewhere- between
the limits of freestanding implimentations and operating
system specific.
I haven't seen much of that need. What I've seen is a need for people
to find the correct discussion group, rather than try to bend this one
to fit their needs.
There isn't necessarily one "right" cutoff point
in this: it could be that more than one new newsgroup should be
the result.
Possibly, though again, I really haven't seen many requests that were
not appropriate in some existing group.
The second answer would be that comp.lang.c has no newsgroup
charter and its existance proceeds *any* of the standardizations
that its current denizens insist on. If the newsgroup is really
to be repurposed to only discussing programs whose behaviour
is well-defined by one of the C standards, then according to
Usenet traditions, that repurposing needs to be put out to
an RFD, possibly followed by a CFV.
There is no re-purposing involved. The discussion of conforming C code
is *already* the purpose of this group.
The third answer would be that I have been answering questions in
technical newsgroups and LISTSERVs and mailing lists and such since
before Usenet escaped from Universities, but I have never before
encountered a technical newsgroup that has been so narrow-minded
and hair-splitting about what the cliques deem discussible or
not.

I suspect that you have rarely or never encountered a newsgroup which
is so consistently useful, on topic, and free of politics and flames,
either. This is a good thing.

--
Al Balmer
Balmer Consulting
re************************@att.net

[Walter Roberson]

In article <aj********************************@4ax.com>,
Alan Balmer <al******@spamcop.net> wrote:
:On 11 Feb 2005 16:02:28 GMT, ro******@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter
:Roberson) wrote:

:>The third answer would be that I have been answering questions in
:>technical newsgroups and LISTSERVs and mailing lists and such since
:>before Usenet escaped from Universities, but I have never before
:>encountered a technical newsgroup that has been so narrow-minded
:>and hair-splitting about what the cliques deem discussible or
:>not.

:I suspect that you have rarely or never encountered a newsgroup which
:is so consistently useful, on topic, and free of politics and flames,
:either. This is a good thing.

Your suspicion would be wrong. I have participated for many years
in newsgroups that are more consistantly useful, on topic, and free
of politics and flames. In those groups, I was usually, for several
years in each case, the second or third most active contributor to the
group (one of the appropriate manufacturer's people would usually be
more active, with myself usually being the most active person who did not
work for the company.)

In the newsgroups I have been active in, the only people who have
been made unwelcome have been the ones who a) are asking that someone
else do their homework for them; or b) are asking that someone steal
or break the law for them; or c) spammed. In comp.lang.c, on
the other hand, one need seldom read more than half a dozen postings
before encountering pointed dismissals of someone who had asked a question
that ay even just a little outside of what can be done outside of the
ISO standards.
:There is no re-purposing involved. The discussion of conforming C code
:is *already* the purpose of this group.

Sorry, that is incorrect.

comp.lang.c has no recorded charter in the ftp.uu.net archive
of control messages.

comp.lang.c was renamed from net.lang.c; the announcement
was November 7, 1986
http://www.google.ca/groups?selm=3015%40cbosgd.ATT.COM

net.lang.c was created Oct 22, 1982 by Jerry Schwarz,
http://www.google.ca/groups?selm=bnews.eagle.565

My suggestion for a "C" newsgroup met with support and no
opposition so net.lang.c (note lower case) has been created.

It's purpose is to carry on discussion of C programming and
the C programming language. Appropriate topics are

Queries on how to write something in C
Queries about why some C code behaves the way it does
Suggestions for C modifications or extensions
C coding "tricks"
Compiler bugs
Availability of compilers
etc.

Jerry Schwarz
BTL -- Murray Hill
harpo!eagle!jerry
Notice the point about "Suggestions for C modifcations or extensions".
Any such message would be outside the scope of a newsgroup
restricted to discussing "conforming" C. Similarily, "compiler bugs"
and "availability of compilers" distinctly fall into the
"platform dependant" category that people are told is inappropriate
in comp.lang.c .

I repeat the question: how can comp.lang.c be about "conforming"
C code when the newsgroup clearly predates the existance of *any*
standard to conform -to- ?
--
csh is bad drugs.

[Default User]

Walter Roberson wrote:

I repeat the question: how can comp.lang.c be about "conforming"
C code when the newsgroup clearly predates the existance of *any*
standard to conform -to- ?

What do you think you will accomplish, besides irritating the majority
of participant? Your opinion is at odds with the consensus of the
groups, we won't be changing. You've been informed, so now you are
effectively just trolling. Congratulations, we'll get your E. Robert
Tisdale coffee mug ready.


Brian

[Mark McIntyre]

On 11 Feb 2005 16:02:28 GMT, in comp.lang.c , ro******@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
(Walter Roberson) wrote:

The second answer would be that comp.lang.c has no newsgroup
charter and its existance proceeds *any* of the standardizations
that its current denizens insist on.
You proceed from fact to falsehood, by way of accidental ignorance. The
very first post, the one establishing net.lang.c, defined the topic. We're
still sticking to it.
If the newsgroup is really
to be repurposed to only discussing programs whose behaviour
is well-defined by one of the C standards, then according to
Usenet traditions, that repurposing needs to be put out to
an RFD, possibly followed by a CFV.
There has been no repurposing, and the lack of charter merely shows this
group's antiquity. In fact should you want to start discussing nonstandard
C here, *you* would have to raise the RFD.
The third answer would be that I have been answering questions in
technical newsgroups and LISTSERVs and mailing lists and such since
before Usenet escaped from Universities, but I have never before
encountered a technical newsgroup that has been so narrow-minded
and hair-splitting about what the cliques deem discussible or
not.
Pardon me, but thats complete poppycock. And even if it weren't, so what?
It seems to me that there is room and call for a newsgroup, perhaps
"comp.lang.c.portable",

Then feel free to start one. Nobody's stopping you.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

[Mark McIntyre]

On 11 Feb 2005 21:11:43 GMT, in comp.lang.c , ro******@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
(Walter Roberson) wrote:

In article <aj********************************@4ax.com>,
Alan Balmer <al******@spamcop.net> wrote:
:There is no re-purposing involved. The discussion of conforming C code
:is *already* the purpose of this group.

Sorry, that is incorrect.
You lie.
comp.lang.c has no recorded charter in the ftp.uu.net archive
of control messages.
Indeed, thats correct.
comp.lang.c was renamed from net.lang.c; the announcement
makes it completely clear the topic is the C *language*. That was codified
by Standard not long afterwards.

Notice the point about "Suggestions for C modifcations or extensions".
It mentions *suggestions* for extensions and modifications, and thats
different to discussion about using common ones. And in any events
Comp.std.c was formed for that purpose, and now forms the right place for
it.

You can argue all you want, all it'll get you is flamed then plonked.
I repeat the question: how can comp.lang.c be about "conforming"
C code when the newsgroup clearly predates the existance of *any*
standard to conform -to- ?

Because as the original post itself clearly states, the topic is the C
*language*. That is now codified by by Standard. Think it thru.

If this is hard to understand, I'm sure someone will write it in all caps
for you.

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

[Walter Roberson]

In article <11*********************@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups. com>,
Default User <de***********@yahoo.com> wrote:
:What do you think you will accomplish, besides irritating the majority
:of participant?

I don't know anything about your background, but in my background,
technical newsgroup participants pride themselves on providing
postings which are as correct and complete as is reasonably feasible.

If someone were to quote the C standard incorrectly, would you not
correct them, even if it isn't what they wanted to hear? You put
truth above convenience or above the possibility that you
might "irritatei" them, do you not?

Just so, if someone misspeaks about the purpose of the newsgroup,
then is it out of place to speak the truth that few people seem to
want to hear?

:Your opinion is at odds with the consensus of the
:groups, we won't be changing.

You know, there's already been an RFD and CFV on the topic, and
the result was that comp.lang.c.moderated was created with a charter
that left comp.lang.c as the appropriate newsgroup for OS-specific
issues not covered by the clc FAQ. The result was announced
March 7, 1995.

:You've been informed,

I have been "informed" by people who obviously didn't know what
they were talking about. The newsgroup has *not* "always" been
only about "conforming" C.

There's a big difference between saying that "clc is only about
ISO C standards-conforming code" and saying "Sorry, there has been
an overwhelming number of messages, and we have found it a practical
necessity to restrain discussions to ISO C standards-conforming code".
The first leads to the "Go peddle your wares elsewhere,
you don't belong here and never did!" attitude I have seen in a
number of postings in a short time; the second leads to replies
closer to "Sorry, this newsgroup gets very busy and we just don't
have the resources to deal with those kinds of questions; please
try other venues where you question is less likely to get lost."

It's "We don't want your kind around here!" vs
"We're doing the best we can but we just can't cope with that, sorry."
When someone posts an answer to a question and that answer fits within
the environment stated by the question-poser, the "We're doing the best
we can" camp says "Hey, it's great that someone with the knowledge and
experience was able to help that person out."; the "We don't want your
kind around here!" camp makes themselves visible by then replyng to
that servicable answer with a "That's not part of Standard C and so is
inappropriate in this newsgroup!".
--
Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature.
-- Rich Kulawiec

[E. Robert Tisdale]

Walter Roberson wrote:

[snip]

I see that you have already met some of our indigenous trolls.
It is important to learn to recognize and ignore them
as soon as possible. Please don't feed the trolls.

[Mark McIntyre]

On 11 Feb 2005 22:47:52 GMT, in comp.lang.c , ro******@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
(Walter Roberson) wrote:

In article <11*********************@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups. com>,
Default User <de***********@yahoo.com> wrote:
:What do you think you will accomplish, besides irritating the majority
:of participant?

I don't know anything about your background, but in my background,
technical newsgroup participants pride themselves on providing
postings which are as correct and complete as is reasonably feasible.
Yes.
If someone were to quote the C standard incorrectly, would you not
correct them, even if it isn't what they wanted to hear? You put
truth above convenience or above the possibility that you
might "irritatei" them, do you not?
Yes
Just so, if someone misspeaks about the purpose of the newsgroup,
then is it out of place to speak the truth that few people seem to
want to hear?
Yes.

However your fundamental mistake is to think you're right about the topic
of this group. The topic is the C LANGUAGE.
:Your opinion is at odds with the consensus of the
:groups, we won't be changing. You know, there's already been an RFD and CFV on the topic,
I just love it when someone talks authoratively about acronyms. Hint: it
doesn;t make you any more authorative.
and
the result was that comp.lang.c.moderated was created with a charter
that left comp.lang.c as the appropriate newsgroup for OS-specific
issues not covered by the clc FAQ. The result was announced
March 7, 1995.
What clcm's charter says is quite irrelevant to clc. I'm surprised you
don't see that.
:You've been informed,

I have been "informed" by people who obviously didn't know what
they were talking about.
ROFL. You mean the regulars here? Get real.
The newsgroup has *not* "always" been
only about "conforming" C.
True. But it *has* been about that since very early on indeed. And it
remains about that today. Your maundering won't change it.
When someone posts an answer to a question and that answer fits within
the environment stated by the question-poser, the "We're doing the best
we can" camp says "Hey, it's great that someone with the knowledge and
experience was able to help that person out.";
This sort of specious argument has been done to death, and directly
contradicts your own point about correctness and truth. How does anyone
*know* the answer is correct - this is a C group, not a windows or unix
group.
the "We don't want your
kind around here!" camp makes themselves visible by then replyng to
that servicable answer with a "That's not part of Standard C and so is
inappropriate in this newsgroup!".

Idiot.

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

[Walter Roberson]

In article <jv********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:
|You proceed from fact to falsehood, by way of accidental ignorance. The
|very first post, the one establishing net.lang.c, defined the topic. We're
|still sticking to it.

No you aren't. The net.lang.c intial message clearly indicates
that matters such as compiler availability and bugs are appropriate
topics; within the last week I have seen claims that those are
OS-specific and so outside the purpose of comp.lang.c .

net.lang.c was for discussions about C, not for discussions about
-standard- C.

If the net.lang.c charter transfered to comp.lang.c then in
the absence of an RFC and CFV otherwise, comp.lang.c is *still*
chartered to allow OS-specific topic, And if the charter didn't transfer,
then claims of what the charter "has always been" are incorrect.
:There has been no repurposing, and the lack of charter merely shows this
:group's antiquity. In fact should you want to start discussing nonstandard
:C here, *you* would have to raise the RFD.

Oh? And would i have to raise an RFD to pull out a question from
(say) December 1986 and post it here as-if fresh? There were 2 1/2 years of
postings in comp.lang.c proper before any "standard" C existed: are
you retroactively declaring that they were off-topic?
:>The third answer would be that I have been answering questions in
:>technical newsgroups and LISTSERVs and mailing lists and such since
:>before Usenet escaped from Universities, but I have never before
:>encountered a technical newsgroup that has been so narrow-minded
:>and hair-splitting about what the cliques deem discussible or
:>not.

:Pardon me, but thats complete poppycock.

Ah? Which part of it do you deam "poppycock"? Do you assert that
I have have not in fact been around Usenet and other similar media that
long, or do you assert that I have in fact encountered technical newsgroups
which were -more- narrow-minded and hair-splitting about acceptable topics?
--
Admit it -- you peeked ahead to find out how this message ends!

[Default User]

Walter Roberson wrote:

In article <11*********************@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups. com>,
Default User <de***********@yahoo.com> wrote:
:What do you think you will accomplish, besides irritating the majority :of participant?

I don't know anything about your background,
Software R&D for the Boeing Company.
but in my background,
technical newsgroup participants pride themselves on providing
postings which are as correct and complete as is reasonably feasible.
This has nothing to do with the subject at hand. This newsgroup has
topicality, we discourage off-topic posts whether they are asking or
answering questions.
If someone were to quote the C standard incorrectly, would you not
correct them, even if it isn't what they wanted to hear? You put
truth above convenience or above the possibility that you
might "irritatei" them, do you not?

What the hell are you talking about? That's a factual matter within the
scope of this newsgroup. You are attempting to change prevailing
sentiment on topicality. You will not succeed. Continuing to pursue is
petulant and disgraceful on your part. You should stop now and
apologize, as a professional should. I hold out little hope.

Brian

[Mark McIntyre]

On 11 Feb 2005 23:13:08 GMT, in comp.lang.c , ro******@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
(Walter Roberson) wrote:

In article <jv********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:
|You proceed from fact to falsehood, by way of accidental ignorance. The
|very first post, the one establishing net.lang.c, defined the topic. We're
|still sticking to it.

No you aren't. The net.lang.c intial message clearly indicates
that matters such as compiler availability and bugs are appropriate
Newsflash: that was twenty years ago. And even so....
net.lang.c was for discussions about C, not for discussions about
-standard- C.
....the group is for Discussions about the C *language*. That was originally
defined by messrs Thompson and Ritchie, then by K&R, then by ISO.
If the net.lang.c charter
there was no charter.
transfered to comp.lang.c then in
the absence of an RFC and CFV otherwise, comp.lang.c is *still*
chartered to allow OS-specific topic,
There is no charter,
And if the charter didn't transfer,
then claims of what the charter "has always been" are incorrect.
There've never been claims of a charter, except by you. The topic of
charterless goups is defined by group consensus.
:There has been no repurposing, and the lack of charter merely shows this
:group's antiquity. In fact should you want to start discussing nonstandard
:C here, *you* would have to raise the RFD.

Oh? And would i have to raise an RFD to pull out a question from
(say) December 1986 and post it here as-if fresh?
No, but you'd get redirected and told you were offtopic.
There were 2 1/2 years of
postings in comp.lang.c proper before any "standard" C existed: are
you retroactively declaring that they were off-topic?
Are you clinically thick? The C language was defined prior to being
internationally agreed by ISO.
:>The third answer would be that I have been answering questions in
:>technical newsgroups and LISTSERVs and mailing lists and such since
:>before Usenet escaped from Universities, but I have never before
:>encountered a technical newsgroup that has been so narrow-minded
:>and hair-splitting about what the cliques deem discussible or
:>not.

:Pardon me, but thats complete poppycock.

Ah? Which part of it do you deam "poppycock"?

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

[Walter Roberson]

In article <tr********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:
:On 11 Feb 2005 22:47:52 GMT, in comp.lang.c , ro******@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
:(Walter Roberson) wrote:

:>The newsgroup has *not* "always" been
:>only about "conforming" C.

:True. But it *has* been about that since very early on indeed.

Well, that's progress, that you admit now that there were topics
that were deemed suitable at one time, but which a number of people
appear to deem inappropriate now.

Now, did the actual newsgroup purpose change, or was it only the
consensual -interpretation- of the purpose? My contention is that it is
the -interpretation- of the purpose which has changed, and that
the old purpose is still there, if unused.

I can imagine that there may have been good practical reasons for
refining the focus. By no means do I imply that a newsgroup that
restricts itself to ISO Conforming C is not a good thing; I question
not the result but the process.
--
Cannot open .signature: Permission denied

[Mark McIntyre]

On 11 Feb 2005 23:13:08 GMT, in comp.lang.c , ro******@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
(Walter Roberson) wrote:

(stuff)

Oh ,and by the way, if you keep this up much longer, all the regulars will
plonk you. The lack of other reply than mine and a couple of others tells
me thats already largely happened. Remember, being plonked is *your* loss,
not ours.
--
Mark McIntyre
CLC FAQ <http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>

[Mark McIntyre]

On 11 Feb 2005 23:33:18 GMT, in comp.lang.c , ro******@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
(Walter Roberson) wrote:

Well, that's progress, that you admit now that there were topics
that were deemed suitable at one time, but which a number of people
appear to deem inappropriate now.
Nobody ever denied this. We're discussing the topic *now*.
Now, did the actual newsgroup purpose change, or was it only the
consensual -interpretation- of the purpose?
Irrelevant. Identical question: are societal morals absolute or relative?
My contention is that it is
the -interpretation- of the purpose which has changed, and that
the old purpose is still there, if unused.

Nobody gives a shit what your contention is, this isn't a debating school.
If you dont like the topic here, go away

*plonk*

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

[Michael Mair]

Walter Roberson wrote:

In article <jv********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:
|You proceed from fact to falsehood, by way of accidental ignorance. The
|very first post, the one establishing net.lang.c, defined the topic. We're
|still sticking to it.

No you aren't. The net.lang.c intial message clearly indicates
that matters such as compiler availability and bugs are appropriate
topics; within the last week I have seen claims that those are
OS-specific and so outside the purpose of comp.lang.c .

net.lang.c was for discussions about C, not for discussions about
-standard- C.

If the net.lang.c charter transfered to comp.lang.c then in
the absence of an RFC and CFV otherwise, comp.lang.c is *still*
chartered to allow OS-specific topic, And if the charter didn't transfer,
then claims of what the charter "has always been" are incorrect.

That is as may be; personally, I go by what the welcome message
(posted on a regular base by James Hu and available from
http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt ), the FAQ and the
regulars (as perceived by some lurking and actively participating
for nearly a year) say.
Even though that may not sit well with you, this is the pragmatic
thing to do. As you claim experience with technical newsgroups
and mailing lists, I guess you know about pragmatism. I am not
happy about the way some requests are treated, even by me. This
is more a matter of the way the answers are written than of their
saying "this is considered off-topic around here".
If you want to give an OT answer, then just crosspost and set
according follow-ups or mark the subject OT.
Cheers
Michael

[some pointless discussion snipped]
--
E-Mail: Mine is an /at/ gmx /dot/ de address.

[Ben Pfaff]

Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> writes:

Oh ,and by the way, if you keep this up much longer, all the regulars will
plonk you. The lack of other reply than mine and a couple of others tells
me thats already largely happened.

For my part, I just see this as a wholly uninteresting discussion.
--
"The fact that there is a holy war doesn't mean that one of the sides
doesn't suck - usually both do..."
--Alexander Viro

[Walter Roberson]

In article <11**********************@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups .com>,
Default User <de***********@yahoo.com> wrote:
:You are attempting to change prevailing
:sentiment on topicality.

Thinking about what you wrote, I think you are correct. It isn't
the topicality itself that I would necessarily see changed, but rather,
just as you say, the -sentiment- about the topicality. As in
how people feel -about- topicality, and thus the manner in which
they react when something is not within the scope of what can,
in a practical sense, be handled in the newsgroup.

I have no objection at all to a group saying "This particular subject
is our area of expertise, and considering the volumes of postings,
on the whole most people here do not have time to pay attention to
much that lays outside of that area."

What I have not liked, though, is some of the manners in which
other topics are dismissed, which at times becomes reminiscent of
a butler looking down his nose and sniffing at the presumption that
one of the "lower classes" would ask him for directions.
:You will not succeed.

The evidence is certainly suggesting that I am not succeeding ;-)
:Continuing to pursue is
:petulant and disgraceful on your part. You should stop now and
:apologize, as a professional should. I hold out little hope.

I make no apology for suggesting that people be treated with more
consideration.

I used to know a doctor, a surgeon specializing in a difficult kind of
operation and with a very good success record. People who had worked
with him told me that he had more than once taken a preliminary image,
looked at it the first time while the patient was present, and then had
turned to the patient and said approximately "Oh yeah, you've got a
tumour there. We can't operate on one like that. You'll probably die
from it in about 3 weeks. You can pay the receptionist on your way out."
Now, was that doctor, highly trained and technically very knowledgible,
a "professional" ?

I went to buy something a few months ago. I walked in and indicated
what I wanted. The clerk was a bit startled (I obviously wasn't
a member of the community the store specialized in), but within a
very short time was busy talking to me about the varieties available and
which one I would prefer, was pleased that I had researched the
field, and made sure that I would be happy with the particular one
I picked out. Was that sales-clerk, who had enough knowledge of the
product to be able to sell it but was not a specialist and not
posessing a particularily strong technical knowledge, a "non-professional" ?

There may be technical meanings to "professional", but I would suggest
that in the common parlance of the average person, that the doctor
would be judged by most to be quite non-professional in the way he treated
patients (as "interesting cases" rather than as feeling beings),
but that most people would understand and agree that the sales-clerk
acted "professionally" in treating me as human and ensuring my
satisfaction even though I did not fit into the regular clientele.

An expert can give a completely correct answer to a question and
yet be "non-professional" about it; I prefer to encourage the
variety of professionalism that looks beyond the immediate question
to the deeper situation and does it's best to help the client
get what the client needs, even if the answer arrived at is not the
best possible of answers.
--
The Knights Of The Lambda Calculus aren't dead --this is their normal form!

[Walter Roberson]

In article <37*************@individual.net>,
Michael Mair <Mi**********@invalid.invalid> wrote:
:Even though that may not sit well with you, this is the pragmatic
:thing to do.

I know what you mean, Michael.

:As you claim experience with technical newsgroups
:and mailing lists, I guess you know about pragmatism.

Yeh. Somehow, I usually manage to hold on to my temper until
people start demanding answers as if it is their right. Or until
someone criticizes me for not having done something that I had
neither the time nor resources to have done. But it is certainly
true that one cannot be all things to all people, and setting
boundaries is sometimes necessary.
:I am not
:happy about the way some requests are treated, even by me. This
:is more a matter of the way the answers are written than of their
:saying "this is considered off-topic around here".

Exactly -- the *way* things are said can come to mean much more than
*what* is said.
Pragmatism... chosing one's fights... I will think more about that.
Thanks for the input.
--
Live it up, rip it up, why so lazy?
Give it out, dish it out, let's go crazy, yeah!
-- Supertramp (The USENET Song)

[Walter Roberson]

In article <o5********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:
:Oh ,and by the way, if you keep this up much longer, all the regulars will
:plonk you.

I imagine many of them have killed the thread by now.

:The lack of other reply than mine and a couple of others tells
:me thats already largely happened. Remember, being plonked is *your* loss,
:not ours.

Make sure you get the last name correct -- there's no "t" in it.
--
Disobey all self-referential sentences!

[infobahn]

Mark McIntyre wrote:

On 11 Feb 2005 22:47:52 GMT, in comp.lang.c , ro******@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
(Walter Roberson) wrote:

the "We don't want your
kind around here!" camp makes themselves visible by then replyng to
that servicable answer with a "That's not part of Standard C and so is
inappropriate in this newsgroup!".

Idiot.

From what I've read of Walter Roberson's articles, I don't see how
you arrive at the conclusion that he's an idiot. I don't agree with
all that he says, by any means, but I do see very clearly that he
is not stupid.

[infobahn]

Mark McIntyre wrote:

On 11 Feb 2005 23:13:08 GMT, in comp.lang.c , ro******@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
(Walter Roberson) wrote:

If the net.lang.c charter
there was no charter.

Dunno.

transfered to comp.lang.c then in
the absence of an RFC and CFV otherwise, comp.lang.c is *still*
chartered to allow OS-specific topic,

There is no charter,

True enough.

And if the charter didn't transfer,
then claims of what the charter "has always been" are incorrect.
There've never been claims of a charter, except by you.

Not true. There is a rich and vibrant history of claims by various
"contributors" to this group that a comp.lang.c charter exists. A
quick Google search (using the old Google, not Gbrokgle) shows 1180
hits on "charter" in clc. I'm not going to plough through them all,
and of course many of them are merely innocent enquiries, but I'll
just pull one of them out to prove your statement false:

<79**************************@posting.google.com >

This one is interesting, because it contains a (false, of course!)
claim that a charter exists, to which a fully clued-up respondent
would have said "nonsense", but in fact we get this exchange:

Contributor A:
"Sorry, I don't want to be rude, but why, for f-words sake,
did you post this reply, presumably ignoring the fact that
there's a charter AND a faq for this NG???"

Contributor B:
"Have you read all the EULAs for all the software you've installed?
Are you a moderator for this newsgroup? Do you think every post in
comp.lang.c follows the charter? Do you think there is any value to
this charter? Do you think the many other posts which did nothing
more than rip into the OP for not following this newsgroups valueless
charter is useful?"

Both of these contributors not only claim, but in fact *assume*, that
a charter exists.
The topic of
charterless goups is defined by group consensus.

Wrong. The topic of charterless groups is defined by ME. Nobody else.
Just me. Anything I want to talk about is fine. Everybody else is
off-topic. I should have thought this was obvious, as it is a direct
consequence of the Theory of Everything Revolves Around Me.

[infobahn]

Mark McIntyre wrote:

On 11 Feb 2005 23:33:18 GMT, in comp.lang.c , ro******@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
(Walter Roberson) wrote:

Now, did the actual newsgroup purpose change, or was it only the
consensual -interpretation- of the purpose?
Irrelevant. Identical question: are societal morals absolute or relative?

Yes. Less irritatingly, they're absolute. And they've gone to hell
in a handbasket.

My contention is that it is
the -interpretation- of the purpose which has changed, and that
the old purpose is still there, if unused.

Nobody gives a shit what your contention is,

Ah, scatology - always a sign that you're losing the war.

this isn't a debating school.

It isn't? So why did it look like one when I peered through the shop
window? I want my money back!

[infobahn]

Walter Roberson wrote:

I have no objection at all to a group saying "This particular subject
is our area of expertise, and considering the volumes of postings,
on the whole most people here do not have time to pay attention to
much that lays outside of that area."
That's more or less what they /do/ say here. Except that they spell
it differently (and in much shorter words).
What I have not liked, though, is some of the manners in which
other topics are dismissed, which at times becomes reminiscent of
a butler looking down his nose and sniffing at the presumption that
one of the "lower classes" would ask him for directions.
<shrug> Some people enjoy being rude. Some of these people are
extraordinarily knowledgeable about C. Nobody is barred from posting
here. Put these three facts together, and you get the response you
mentioned; it's inevitable.
:You will not succeed.

The evidence is certainly suggesting that I am not succeeding ;-)
What the heck, as long as you enjoy thinking and typing?

:Continuing to pursue is
:petulant and disgraceful on your part. You should stop now and
:apologize, as a professional should. I hold out little hope.

I make no apology for suggesting that people be treated with more
consideration.
YOU CAD!
I used to know a doctor [with the bedside manner of a Vogon]
<snip>
I went to buy something a few months ago [and succeeded]
<snip>
There may be technical meanings to "professional", but I would suggest
that in the common parlance of the average person, that the doctor
would be judged by most to be quite non-professional in the way he treated
patients (as "interesting cases" rather than as feeling beings),
but that most people would understand and agree that the sales-clerk
acted "professionally" in treating me as human and ensuring my
satisfaction even though I did not fit into the regular clientele.

The analogy falls completely apart because both the doctor and the
sales clerk got PAID for the assistance they rendered. Here in
comp.lang.c, only the cabal members get paid, remember?

Now, if you start sending me a pay-cheque every month for supplying
newbies with answers to questions they can find in their C book if
only they could be bothered to look, I'll cut down on the offensive
language and hostile glares I give Unix people and Windows people
when they dare to come into the shop. Until then, I fully intend to
be exactly as rude and arrogant in the future as I have been in the
past, and who are /you/ to stop me?

[infobahn]

Walter Roberson wrote:

In article <o5********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:
:Oh ,and by the way, if you keep this up much longer, all the regulars will
:plonk you.

I imagine many of them have killed the thread by now.
Nah. This is the best bit. Beats TV any day.

:The lack of other reply than mine and a couple of others tells
:me thats already largely happened. Remember, being plonked is *your* loss,
:not ours.

Make sure you get the last name correct -- there's no "t" in it.
I have some to spare, if you're interested.
--
Disobey all self-referential sentences!

I was about to complain that that's obviously n... and then I...
and eventually I realised that it *is* funny after all.

[Jonathan Burd]

Fao, Sean wrote:

Walter Roberson wrote:

In article <ar********************************@4ax.com>,

|Since the topic of this group is standard C, its worth making such
|distinctions very clear.
Jack did, though, say that the "only" way is to use
some "non-standard extension". POSIX.1 is a -standard- extension,
not a non-standard extension.

We see lots of postings from people using basic C I/O operations
such as printf() even though those "may not exist on all platforms
of interest" in a standard-compliant C implimentation. It doesn't
hurt us to admit that very few programs are written in the portion
of C that is certain to exist on any compliant implimentation.

The debate on what should/shouldn't be topical on comp.lang.c has been
argued thousands of times and the general consensus of this group has
*never* changed. Why must people continue to throw out the debate as if
it were some ingenious idea that's never before been discussed?

If you look up the word "pedantic" in a dictionary, you'll find this:
ref. comp.lang.c. Indeed, if pedantic is what one must be, then you
should also note that the standard clearly distinguishes between the
terms "language" and "library." If this NG is strictly about the
*language only*, the library wouldn't matter anyway. That would
render any discussions about the library functions as off-topic and
you could go a step further and redirect that topic to, say,
comp.library.c since we're being pedantic. ;)

[follow ups > /dev/null]

Regards,
Jonathan.

--
Email: "jonathan [period] burd [commercial-at] gmail [period] com"

"I usually swear at C++, but so far it has never sworn back."
- Ben "Noir"

[CBFalconer]

infobahn wrote:

.... snip ...
<shrug> Some people enjoy being rude. Some of these people are
extraordinarily knowledgeable about C. Nobody is barred from
posting here. Put these three facts together, and you get the
response you mentioned; it's inevitable.

Where is Dan Pop when we need him :-)

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson

[Randy Howard]

In article <42***************@yahoo.com>, cb********@yahoo.com says...

infobahn wrote:

... snip ...

<shrug> Some people enjoy being rude. Some of these people are
extraordinarily knowledgeable about C. Nobody is barred from
posting here. Put these three facts together, and you get the
response you mentioned; it's inevitable.

Where is Dan Pop when we need him :-)

Don't worry, someone will fill the void (NPI). Oh wait, they already
have.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"Making it hard to do stupid things often makes it hard
to do smart ones too." -- Andrew Koenig

[Ben Pfaff]

Randy Howard <ra*********@FOOverizonBAR.net> writes:

Don't worry, someone will fill the void (NPI).

void is an incomplete type that cannot be filled.
--
Ben Pfaff
email: bl*@cs.stanford.edu
web: http://benpfaff.org

[Randy Howard]

In article <87************@benpfaff.org>, bl*@cs.stanford.edu says...

Randy Howard <ra*********@FOOverizonBAR.net> writes:

Don't worry, someone will fill the void (NPI).

void is an incomplete type that cannot be filled.

ack. I knew that was going to backfire.

[Richard Bos]

ro******@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) wrote:

It seems to me that there is room and call for a newsgroup, perhaps
"comp.lang.c.portable", perhaps some other name, that allows
discussion of C programs which are intended to fit within well-
defined international standards such as the IEC/ISO standards,
including POSIX.*.

This is a very old joke, and we no longer find it funny.

Richard

[Default User]

Walter Roberson wrote:

In article <11**********************@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups .com>,
Default User <de***********@yahoo.com> wrote:
:You are attempting to change prevailing
:sentiment on topicality.

Thinking about what you wrote, I think you are correct. It isn't
the topicality itself that I would necessarily see changed, but rather, just as you say, the -sentiment- about the topicality. As in
how people feel -about- topicality, and thus the manner in which
they react when something is not within the scope of what can,
in a practical sense, be handled in the newsgroup.

I'm not trying to reopen wounds here, after a pleasant weekend away
(the second Saturday in row that allowed shirtsleeve BBQ action in St.
Loo).

However, as pointed out elsewhere, this group has no charter. So the
only real guide to topicality *is* prevailing sentiment. You should
understand that my very first post to this group many moons ago was
off-topic. The difference was that I accepted that and apologized, not
for posting off-topic exactly but for not taking the time to find out
what the rules were.
I have no objection at all to a group saying "This particular subject
is our area of expertise, and considering the volumes of postings,
on the whole most people here do not have time to pay attention to
much that lays outside of that area."
But that would be false. Indeed many people here do have expertise in
the areas asked about, but they respect the majority wishes and
redirect the poster to a more appropriate group, like
comp.unix.programmer for POSIX questions.
What I have not liked, though, is some of the manners in which
other topics are dismissed, which at times becomes reminiscent of
a butler looking down his nose and sniffing at the presumption that
one of the "lower classes" would ask him for directions.
Some people are not as pleasant as they could be. That is almost a
truism in society. For the most part, the people here handly off-topic
requests pretty well. The problem is, some people feel that "no" is
impolite, and scream "flame" when told their question is inappropriate
and will not be answered here. We also tend to get more brusque when
the same person continually violates topicality after being informed of
the general wishes of the group.

:You will not succeed.

The evidence is certainly suggesting that I am not succeeding ;-)
You will not. That's a prediction you can bank. It's certainly not the
first this has come up, others have made essentially the same
arguments. The majority are unmoved.

:Continuing to pursue is
:petulant and disgraceful on your part. You should stop now and
:apologize, as a professional should. I hold out little hope.

I make no apology for suggesting that people be treated with more
consideration.

That was not your original contention, nor did it have anything to do
with what I said. Please don't change the debate. If you want to
criticize some specific (and better be prepared to indicate which)
instances of discourteous behavior, I'm with you.

That's not what we were discussing.

Brian

[Fao, Sean]

Walter Roberson wrote:

In article <tr********************************@4ax.com>,
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:
:On 11 Feb 2005 22:47:52 GMT, in comp.lang.c , ro******@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
:(Walter Roberson) wrote:

:>The newsgroup has *not* "always" been
:>only about "conforming" C.

:True. But it *has* been about that since very early on indeed.

Well, that's progress, that you admit now that there were topics
that were deemed suitable at one time, but which a number of people
appear to deem inappropriate now.

Deemed inappropriate in an attempt to keep clc under control. Take a
walk over to microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.* and read their
messages. They permit pretty much everything. The regulars consist of
three kinds of people. The most common are idiot "programmers" that
wouldn't last a day if it weren't for newsgroup posters to write their
programs for them. The second is made up of people that think they can
program, but have very little background and understanding. They
commonly get the job done; but in an *extremely* inefficient manner.
The third group of people makes up a very small percentage of the group.
These are the real software engineers that actually have an
understanding and can write decent software. Unfortunately, however,
their messages are often lost in all the madness.

comp.lang.c has the above three groups, as well; but, the largest
percentage of regulars *do* know what they're talking about and have no
problem presenting facts/opinions when something is wrong.

--
Sean