473,320 Members | 1,691 Online
Bytes | Software Development & Data Engineering Community
Post Job

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Join Bytes to post your question to a community of 473,320 software developers and data experts.

sscanf and int64 in Win32 and Unix - different results?


I've got this problem:
unsigned long long lTemp;
char cLargeNum[]="1324567890";
sscanf(clargeNum,"%llu",&lTemp);

which under Win32 isn't working*. My program needs to compile under
posix so no Win32 specials allowed....

* lTemp = -368934881...
* if I mess around with signing I can get huge but incorrect poitive
numbers.
* I'm pretty sure it works in unix (but without a debugger I can only
sprintf with %lld as an argument .. this could hide the conversion
error I spose?)

Nov 14 '05
82 12509
In article <io********************************@4ax.com>,
Paul Mesken <us*****@euronet.nl> wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2005 02:01:05 GMT, CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com>
wrote:

The only real relationship between C and C++ is the arcane
syntax.


C++ can be considered a superset of C for practical purposes. And,
thus, C can be considered a subset of C++.


So, by that reasoning, the set of negative integers and the set of
nonnegative integers are less like each other than either is like the
set of real numbers, because both are subsets of the reals but their
intersection is the empty set.
Try making this claim in front of a mathematician and see how long it
takes them to stop laughing at you.

The fact that the expressive ability of C++ is a superset of the
expressive ability of C is better used to support the claim that C
and C++ are dissimilar than the claim that they're similar, especially
since there is a large-ish set of languages (including Pascal) with an
expressive ability Rather More Similar to C than to C++.
dave

--
Dave Vandervies dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca

I suggest a complete rewrite and execu... ridiculing the original programmer.
--Gergo Barany in comp.lang.c
Nov 14 '05 #51
On Tue, 31 May 2005 16:04:55 +0000 (UTC), dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
(Dave Vandervies) wrote:
In article <io********************************@4ax.com>,
Paul Mesken <us*****@euronet.nl> wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2005 02:01:05 GMT, CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com>
wrote:

The only real relationship between C and C++ is the arcane
syntax.


C++ can be considered a superset of C for practical purposes. And,
thus, C can be considered a subset of C++.


So, by that reasoning, the set of negative integers and the set of
nonnegative integers are less like each other than either is like the
set of real numbers, because both are subsets of the reals but their
intersection is the empty set.
Try making this claim in front of a mathematician and see how long it
takes them to stop laughing at you.

The fact that the expressive ability of C++ is a superset of the
expressive ability of C is better used to support the claim that C
and C++ are dissimilar than the claim that they're similar, especially
since there is a large-ish set of languages (including Pascal) with an
expressive ability Rather More Similar to C than to C++.


I'm surrounded by insanity! This is no place for me ;-)

Certainly, your mathematical metaphor has some merit to it but you
also implicitly claim that the _form_ expressions take on is
completely unimportant.

This would be like saying that English and Turkish are very much like
each other because the same ideas can be expressed in both of them.
But, unless you're proficient in both Turkish and English, these
language are very different from a _practical_ point of view (one is
understood readily, the other is not at all) and this is all due to
the _form_ of the languages, not because of their expressive
abilities.

For philosophical purposes, English and Turkish are much like each
other. For people who know English but not Turkish, they're completely
different.

Let's _assume_ (I don't know for certain since I'm not at all
experienced in programming in Pascal) that all things that can be
expressed in C can also be expressed in Pascal and vice versa.

C++ can be used to express the same things as can be expressed in C
and Pascal.

But : there are things that can be expressed in C++ but NOT in Pascal
or C.

This would support Torek's claim.

However, saying that C is more like Pascal than C is like C++ would
ignore the fact that the _form_ of C is also incorporated in C++ (but
not in Pascal). That's not surprising since C++ is _based_ on C (I
choose to take the word of the maker of C++, besides : it's quite
clear).

As a programmer one uses a programming language to express ideas (or
better : algorithms). IOW the language provides in the form these
expressions take on. C shows a lot of overlap with C++ in this respect
and very little with Pascal.

So, from a academical, philosophical point of view C and Pascal are
more like each other than C and C++.

But from a practical (as in : real world) point of view, C is more
like C++ than C is like Pascal.
Nov 14 '05 #52

In article <io********************************@4ax.com>, Paul Mesken <us*****@euronet.nl> writes:
Chris Torek <no****@torek.net> wrote:

I consider C and Pascal more closely related than C and C++.
Besides : even Bjarne Stroustrup states that C++ is based on C...

But C is not based on Pascal, nor vice versa, nor do they have the
same "direct parent".
There's no special relationship between an entity's history and what
it now most closely resembles. Consider, for example, phylogeny.

And even if Stroustop has an opinion on how closely C++ resembles
other languages, that's not a compelling argument. It's not an
argument at all, in fact, until you can demonstrate why Stroustrop's
opinion in this matter is relevant. (Here's a hint: his status as
the inventor of C++ does not constitute such a demonstration.)

Did they not teach rhetoric in your school?
The only real relationship between C and C++ is the arcane
syntax.


C++ can be considered a superset of C for practical purposes.


Only by the lazy-minded.
And, thus, C can be considered a subset of C++.
Only by the foolish.
I know there are those who like to make a big deal out of some subtle
differences but I'd like to point out that the differences between
Pascal and C are much greater in this respect.
Your point is either misstated or incorrect. There are vast differ-
ences between C++ and either C or Pascal - much more significant
than the mostly syntactic differences between the last two. If you
mean to compare only the syntactic differences between the common
subset of C++ and C, on the one hand, and C and Pascal on the other,
what makes you believe that is significant in determining what makes
one language "like" another? Syntax is the least important char-
acteristic of a programming language.

ML is more like LISP than it is like Pascal, even though its syntax
is more like the latter's, for example.
Really, you two are in denial. I feel a great resistance to
acknowledging the (obvious) relation between C and C++. Some
psychotherapy might be needed ;-)
I urge you to seek some. It might disabuse you of the notion that
every idea which seems obvious to you must be true.

I can't help but notice that you have yet failed to offer a coherent
argument in this discussion, resorting instead to declaring that
you've already won, as you do here and earlier (with your snide
remark about "the iron grip of reason"). Hardly the mark of a man
operating from a well-constructed defense of his position.
There is no object orientation in either C or Pascal,
although object oriented code can be written in either.


And C++ can be used to write purely procedural code.


What's your point? That C++ is more like C than Pascal is, if you
ignore all the parts of C++ that aren't like C?
The OO part of
C++ is arbitrary (it's not arbitrary in Java, for example).


Please demonstrate how Java is not Turing-complete if its OO
features are not used. For the sake of argument, let's say that
includes encapsulation, polymorphism, and inheritance.
--
Michael Wojcik mi************@microfocus.com

Auden often writes like Disney. Like Disney, he knows the shape of beasts --
(& incidently he, too, might have a company of artists producing his lines) --
unlike Lawrence, he does not know what shapes or motivates these beasts.
-- Dylan Thomas
Nov 14 '05 #53
On 31 May 2005 20:05:51 GMT, mw*****@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik)
wrote:
Did they not teach rhetoric in your school? Only by the lazy-minded. Only by the foolish.


I see "grumpiness" is still fully alive in this ng.

Haven't you read Steve Summit's article on that?
Nov 14 '05 #54
In article <d7********@news1.newsguy.com>,
Michael Wojcik <mw*****@newsguy.com> wrote:

There's no special relationship between an entity's history and what
it now most closely resembles. Consider, for example, phylogeny.


Okay, I am considering the relationship between phylogeny's history and
what it now most closely resembles. I think it's quite special!
--
7842++
Nov 14 '05 #55
On Tue, 31 May 2005 03:08:11 +0200, in comp.lang.c , Paul Mesken
<us*****@euronet.nl> wrote:
The first C++ compilers generated C code that was fed into a C compiler.


This is true, but largely irrelevant. Many C compilers can generate
assembler, but linguistically C is closer to Fortran than assembler.
--
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 #56
On Tue, 31 May 2005 23:04:34 +0200, in comp.lang.c , Paul Mesken
<us*****@euronet.nl> wrote:
On 31 May 2005 20:05:51 GMT, mw*****@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik)
wrote:
Did they not teach rhetoric in your school?
Only by the lazy-minded.

Only by the foolish.


I see "grumpiness" is still fully alive in this ng.


Only when supposedly sensible people post idiotic remarks.
Haven't you read Steve Summit's article on that?


on Grumpiness? Is that topical in CLC?
--
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 #57
Mark McIntyre wrote:
but linguistically C is closer to Fortran than assembler.


I didn't see that one coming...
Nov 14 '05 #58
On Tue, 31 May 2005 23:33:23 +0100, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2005 03:08:11 +0200, in comp.lang.c , Paul Mesken
<us*****@euronet.nl> wrote:
The first C++ compilers generated C code that was fed into a C compiler.


This is true, but largely irrelevant. Many C compilers can generate
assembler, but linguistically C is closer to Fortran than assembler.


Yes, but Assembly isn't really a language. It's largely a more
readable mnemonic representation of the processor's machinecode and
it's different for different processors and even for different
assemblers for the same processor.

The two (C and Assembly) cannot be compared.

Nov 14 '05 #59
On Tue, 31 May 2005 23:36:06 +0100, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:
On Tue, 31 May 2005 23:04:34 +0200, in comp.lang.c , Paul Mesken

Haven't you read Steve Summit's article on that?


on Grumpiness? Is that topical in CLC?


Since it is from Steve Summit's hand, yes, then it is topical :-)

Nov 14 '05 #60
Paul Mesken <us*****@euronet.nl> writes:
[...]
Yes, but Assembly isn't really a language. It's largely a more
readable mnemonic representation of the processor's machinecode and
it's different for different processors and even for different
assemblers for the same processor.

The two (C and Assembly) cannot be compared.


But you just did.

--
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 #61
Guillaume <"grsNOSPAM at NOTTHATmail dot com"> writes:
Mark McIntyre wrote:
but linguistically C is closer to Fortran than assembler.


I didn't see that one coming...


A fairly simple preprocessor can convert Ratfor, which has a
passing resemblance to C, into Fortran. The code in _Software
Tools_ by Kernighan and Plauger, written in Ratfor, is really
quite reminiscent of C programs to do the same things. (And an
appendix describes the Ratfor->Fortran translator).
--
int main(void){char p[]="ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZabcdefghijklmnopqrstuv wxyz.\
\n",*q="kl BIcNBFr.NKEzjwCIxNJC";int i=sizeof p/2;char *strchr();int putchar(\
);while(*q){i+=strchr(p,*q++)-p;if(i>=(int)sizeof p)i-=sizeof p-1;putchar(p[i]\
);}return 0;}
Nov 14 '05 #62
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 03:44:42 GMT, Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org>
wrote:
Paul Mesken <us*****@euronet.nl> writes:
[...]
Yes, but Assembly isn't really a language. It's largely a more
readable mnemonic representation of the processor's machinecode and
it's different for different processors and even for different
assemblers for the same processor.

The two (C and Assembly) cannot be compared.


But you just did.


But as a programming tool, not as a language. The level of abstraction
is just too low in Assembly :-)

Nov 14 '05 #63
Paul Mesken <us*****@euronet.nl> wrote:
C++ can be used to express the same things as can be expressed in C
and Pascal.

But : there are things that can be expressed in C++ but NOT in Pascal
or C.
<http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/Turing-tar-pit.html>, second
item.

HTH; HAND.
This would support Torek's claim.


No, it wouldn't. Nor would it contradict it. It is orthogonal to it, and
it's also untrue.

Richard
Nov 14 '05 #64
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 12:42:51 GMT, rl*@hoekstra-uitgeverij.nl (Richard
Bos) wrote:
Paul Mesken <us*****@euronet.nl> wrote:
C++ can be used to express the same things as can be expressed in C
and Pascal.

But : there are things that can be expressed in C++ but NOT in Pascal
or C.


<http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/Turing-tar-pit.html>, second
item.


Holy Wars. And it doesn't even mention C/C++ versus Assembly. Has
everyone forgotten about my contributions in the past? That's like as
if WW2 isn't even mentioned in "Global Conflicts" ;-)
Nov 14 '05 #65
On Wed, 01 Jun 2005 14:57:22 +0200, in comp.lang.c , Paul Mesken
<us*****@euronet.nl> wrote:
Has
everyone forgotten about my contributions in the past?
Past performance is no guarantee of future returns, as some of us are
obligated to tell our clients...
that's like as if WW2 isn't even mentioned in "Global Conflicts" ;-)


It isn't, in Russian or American schoolbooks. At least, not with the
right dates in either case, and in the former case its called The
Great Patriotic War. :-)
--
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 #66

In article <90********************************@4ax.com>, Paul Mesken <us*****@euronet.nl> writes:
On Tue, 31 May 2005 23:33:23 +0100, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:
Many C compilers can generate
assembler, but linguistically C is closer to Fortran than assembler.
Yes, but Assembly isn't really a language.


Yes, it really is a language (and there's no need to capitalize
"assembly" in English, since it's not a proper noun). Any assembly
language consists of a set of symbols and rules for constructing
valid sentences from them. That's what defines a language.
It's largely a more
readable mnemonic representation of the processor's machinecode
How would this make it not a language?
and
it's different for different processors and even for different
assemblers for the same processor.
No, there are different assembly languages. Each of them is still
a language.
The two (C and Assembly) cannot be compared.


And yet several people in this very discussion have successfully
compared them. Why, you have yourself! Congratulations.

--
Michael Wojcik mi************@microfocus.com

Push up the bottom with your finger, it will puffy and makes stand up.
-- instructions for "swan" from an origami kit
Nov 14 '05 #67
On 1 Jun 2005 22:37:29 GMT, mw*****@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik)
wrote:

In article <90********************************@4ax.com>, Paul Mesken <us*****@euronet.nl> writes:
On Tue, 31 May 2005 23:33:23 +0100, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:
>Many C compilers can generate
>assembler, but linguistically C is closer to Fortran than assembler.
Yes, but Assembly isn't really a language.


Yes, it really is a language (and there's no need to capitalize
"assembly" in English, since it's not a proper noun).


Perhaps you should also point out to Mark that "C" and "Fortran" are
not proper nouns either :-)

At least I'm consistent with my capitals.
Any assembly
language consists of a set of symbols and rules for constructing
valid sentences from them. That's what defines a language.


That's what defines a formal scheme. I agree that Assembly is a formal
scheme.

Nov 14 '05 #68

In article <qd********************************@4ax.com>, Paul Mesken <us*****@euronet.nl> writes:
On 1 Jun 2005 22:37:29 GMT, mw*****@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik)
wrote:
In article <90********************************@4ax.com>, Paul Mesken <us*****@euronet.nl> writes:
On Tue, 31 May 2005 23:33:23 +0100, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:

>Many C compilers can generate
>assembler, but linguistically C is closer to Fortran than assembler.

Yes, but Assembly isn't really a language.


Yes, it really is a language (and there's no need to capitalize
"assembly" in English, since it's not a proper noun).


Perhaps you should also point out to Mark that "C" and "Fortran" are
not proper nouns either :-)


In English, "C" and "Fortran" *are* proper nouns.
Any assembly
language consists of a set of symbols and rules for constructing
valid sentences from them. That's what defines a language.


That's what defines a formal scheme. I agree that Assembly is a formal
scheme.


In computing theory, as it's expressed in English, that's what
defines a language. "Formal scheme" has no generally accepted
meaning as a term of art in computing theory expressed in English
that I'm aware of. If you wish to invent your own terminology, I
don't believe we can (easily and legally) stop you, but please be
aware that that, too, does not constitute an argument.
--
Michael Wojcik mi************@microfocus.com

Therefore, it is possible to enjoy further by using under the
Netscape 2.0. However, Netscape will hangup at sometimes. You
should give it up. -- roro
Nov 14 '05 #69
On 2 Jun 2005 14:21:18 GMT, mw*****@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik)
wrote:

In article <qd********************************@4ax.com>, Paul Mesken <us*****@euronet.nl> writes:
On 1 Jun 2005 22:37:29 GMT, mw*****@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik)
wrote:
>In article <90********************************@4ax.com>, Paul Mesken <us*****@euronet.nl> writes: > Any assembly
>language consists of a set of symbols and rules for constructing
>valid sentences from them. That's what defines a language.
That's what defines a formal scheme. I agree that Assembly is a formal
scheme.


In computing theory, as it's expressed in English, that's what
defines a language. "Formal scheme" has no generally accepted
meaning as a term of art in computing theory expressed in English
that I'm aware of.


Sigh...

I'd suggest that you read David Marr's "Vision" and the part "1.2
Understanding Complex Information-Processing Systems".

I think that's the perfect introduction to terms like "Formal Scheme",
"Formal System", "Computational Theory", "Algorithm", etc. and how
they all fit together.

I shall glance over the fact that you try to cast doubts over my
command of the English language.
If you wish to invent your own terminology, I
don't believe we can (easily and legally) stop you, but please be
aware that that, too, does not constitute an argument.


I didn't invent the terms, nor their definitions. I wish I would :-)

Nov 14 '05 #70
On 2 Jun 2005 14:21:18 GMT, mw*****@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik)
wrote:
In article <qd********************************@4ax.com>, Paul Mesken <us*****@euronet.nl> writes:
On 1 Jun 2005 22:37:29 GMT, mw*****@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik)
wrote:
>In article <90********************************@4ax.com>, Paul Mesken <us*****@euronet.nl> writes:
>> On Tue, 31 May 2005 23:33:23 +0100, Mark McIntyre
>> <ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Many C compilers can generate
>> >assembler, but linguistically C is closer to Fortran than assembler.
>>
>> Yes, but Assembly isn't really a language.
>
>Yes, it really is a language (and there's no need to capitalize
>"assembly" in English, since it's not a proper noun).


Perhaps you should also point out to Mark that "C" and "Fortran" are
not proper nouns either :-)


In English, "C" and "Fortran" *are* proper nouns.


Not all nouns start with a capital letter. The word "Assembly" is a
noun, however.

Words that are names for a language, like "Dutch", "German",
"English", etc. are started with a capital letter.

So, if C and Fortran are considered languages then I guess it would be
okay to start them with a capital letter (which I do consistently
anyway).

But you argue that Assembly is such a language as well. So, by your
own argument, "Assembly" should be started with a capital :-)

Nov 14 '05 #71
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 17:59:38 +0200, in comp.lang.c , Paul Mesken
<us*****@euronet.nl> wrote:
On 2 Jun 2005 14:21:18 GMT, mw*****@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik)
wrote:

In English, "C" and "Fortran" *are* proper nouns.


Not all nouns start with a capital letter. The word "Assembly" is a
noun, however.


So bloody well what? This has what precisely to do with ISO C?

idiot.

--
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 #72
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 20:29:24 +0100, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 17:59:38 +0200, in comp.lang.c , Paul Mesken
<us*****@euronet.nl> wrote:
On 2 Jun 2005 14:21:18 GMT, mw*****@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik)
wrote:

In English, "C" and "Fortran" *are* proper nouns.
Not all nouns start with a capital letter. The word "Assembly" is a
noun, however.


So bloody well what? This has what precisely to do with ISO C?


Well, don't look at me. I didn't brought this stuff up whether
Assembly should or should not be written with a capital. You have to
thank Michale for that.
idiot.


Is that the best you've got?

Nov 14 '05 #73
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 23:00:26 +0200, Paul Mesken <us*****@euronet.nl>
wrote:
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 20:29:24 +0100, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 17:59:38 +0200, in comp.lang.c , Paul Mesken
<us*****@euronet.nl> wrote:
On 2 Jun 2005 14:21:18 GMT, mw*****@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik)
wrote:
In English, "C" and "Fortran" *are* proper nouns.

Not all nouns start with a capital letter. The word "Assembly" is a
noun, however.


So bloody well what? This has what precisely to do with ISO C?


Well, don't look at me. I didn't brought this stuff up whether
Assembly should or should not be written with a capital. You have to
thank Michale for that.


I meant "Michael", of course.
idiot.


Is that the best you've got?


Nov 14 '05 #74

In article <44********************************@4ax.com>, Paul Mesken <us*****@euronet.nl> writes:
On 2 Jun 2005 14:21:18 GMT, mw*****@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik)
wrote:
In computing theory, as it's expressed in English, that's what
defines a language. "Formal scheme" has no generally accepted
meaning as a term of art in computing theory expressed in English
that I'm aware of.
I'd suggest that you read David Marr's "Vision" and the part "1.2
Understanding Complex Information-Processing Systems".

I think that's the perfect introduction to terms like "Formal Scheme",
"Formal System", "Computational Theory", "Algorithm", etc. and how
they all fit together.


In Marr's opinion, perhaps. It takes more than one reference to
demonstrate a consensus.

The definition I proposed agrees with Cohen, _Introduction to
Computer Theory_; Knuth, TAOCP 1 (it's even the definition given in
the index entry for "language"); Gersting, _Mathematical Structures
for Computer Science_; Aho, Sethi, Ullman, _Compilers_ (the "Dragon
book"); Holub, _Compiler Design in C_. Those are just references I
happen to have handy.

Now please explain why I should believe your definition, and Marr's
(assuming his actually agrees with you), over all of those. And
please demonstrate that there's any consensus among computing theory
practitioners that your definition is superior.
I shall glance over the fact that you try to cast doubts over my
command of the English language.


You misread. I was merely noting that terms of art in a field may
differ according to the language in which they're expressed.

I have little evidence from which to draw conclusions about your
grasp of English. Nor do I care, particularly.
If you wish to invent your own terminology, I
don't believe we can (easily and legally) stop you, but please be
aware that that, too, does not constitute an argument.


I didn't invent the terms, nor their definitions. I wish I would :-)


I never said you did. You're inventing your own *terminology* (not
terms) by insisting on distinctions which are not generally
recognized by practitioners in the field.

But thanks for playing, and better luck next time, eh?

--
Michael Wojcik mi************@microfocus.com

This is a "rubbering action game," a 2D platformer where you control a
girl equipped with an elastic rope with a fishing hook at the end.
-- review of _Umihara Kawase Shun_ for the Sony Playstation
Nov 14 '05 #75

In article <sm********************************@4ax.com>, Paul Mesken <us*****@euronet.nl> writes:
On 2 Jun 2005 14:21:18 GMT, mw*****@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik)
wrote:
In article <qd********************************@4ax.com>, Paul Mesken <us*****@euronet.nl> writes:
On 1 Jun 2005 22:37:29 GMT, mw*****@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik)
wrote:
>In article <90********************************@4ax.com>, Paul Mesken <us*****@euronet.nl> writes:

Perhaps you should also point out to Mark that "C" and "Fortran" are
not proper nouns either :-)
In English, "C" and "Fortran" *are* proper nouns.


Not all nouns start with a capital letter.


True, in English. Proper nouns in English are generally written with
an initial capital; common nouns are not, except at the beginning of
a sentence. None of this is relevant to whether "C" and "Fortran" are
proper nouns.

I have a degree in English. Your time might be better spent teaching
your grandmother the finer points of egg-sucking.
The word "Assembly" is a noun, however.
"However"? That was never in dispute.
Words that are names for a language, like "Dutch", "German",
"English", etc. are started with a capital letter.
Yes, if they're proper nouns, they are generally written with an
initial capital. Do you have a point?
So, if C and Fortran are considered languages then I guess it would be
okay to start them with a capital letter (which I do consistently
anyway).
Hurrah.
But you argue that Assembly is such a language as well.


No, I argued that assembly languages are languages. I never argued
that "assembly" was a proper noun, or that it was the name of a
distinct language. If you believe otherwise, please provide a specific
direct quotation to the contrary.

--
Michael Wojcik mi************@microfocus.com

Painful lark, labouring to rise!
The solemn mallet says:
In the grave's slot
he lies. We rot. -- Basil Bunting
Nov 14 '05 #76
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 23:00:26 +0200, in comp.lang.c , Paul Mesken
<us*****@euronet.nl> wrote:
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 20:29:24 +0100, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:
idiot.


Is that the best you've got?


Its the best I'm prepared to waste. You got a point thats topical
here, relating to this discussion?
--
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 #77
On 3 Jun 2005 16:03:20 GMT, mw*****@newsguy.com (Michael Wojcik)
wrote:
But thanks for playing, and better luck next time, eh?


Hmm, Knuth writes "assembly" with a lower case letter. He's also
speaking of "assembly language". Knuth does carry some weight around
(being a "demigod").

Amazing...

BUT that won't stop me from unilaterally declaring victory! (my
specialty) I will persist in writing Assembly with a capital 'A' in
order to underline its superior character. My rebellious and defiant
stance will be an inspiration to millions all over the World. Ha!

Nov 14 '05 #78
On Fri, 03 Jun 2005 18:17:34 +0100, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 23:00:26 +0200, in comp.lang.c , Paul Mesken
<us*****@euronet.nl> wrote:
On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 20:29:24 +0100, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:
idiot.


Is that the best you've got?


Its the best I'm prepared to waste. You got a point thats topical
here, relating to this discussion?


I don't think any point I've made in this thread is topical here
(perhaps not surpisingly). I didn't mean to do such a thing at all.

I just take pleasure in that I was able to drag you into this for so
many off-topic posts, making you a kind of accomplice in my evil ploy.

There you have it. While you thought you were fighting me you were
actually a minion of mine. A mere instrument to bypass kill files, not
to mention a way to increase off topic volume (I'm not a filibuster
like Scott Nudds, I need accomplices).

[ froggy voice ] Everything that has transpired has done so according
to my design.

It's obvious that the "rabid C priests" here like to stick up for each
other and show contempt to Assembly programmers like you have done for
Paul Hsieh but Assembly programmers also like to stick up for each
other and there are few things "rabid C priests" hate as much as off
topic posts in this group. You have helped me greatly with taking
revenge. Torek was wise not take my bait.

Mark : "OH NO! I realise now that I have become the very thing I hate
the most. Why? Why are you revealing this terrible thing to me?".

Paulpatine : "Because I want you to _suffer_, my young apprentice. I
can feel your anger. Now, turn down C and use Assembly.".

Mark : "Never! I will never be turned! You've failed, your Highness."

Paulpatine : "Young fool! Experience the full power of the Dark Side
of the Code".

[ lightning shooting from the Dark Lord's fingers, engulfing the
hapless C priest with pain and agony ]

etc.

Nov 14 '05 #79
On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 00:37:10 +0200, in comp.lang.c , Paul Mesken
<us*****@euronet.nl> wrote:
I just take pleasure in that I was able to drag you into this for so
many off-topic posts, making you a kind of accomplice in my evil ploy.


Yeah, whatever. You really are a dick head it seems.

And FWIW most of my posts were topical, since a) discussion of
topicality is always topical and b) my point was, the ISO standard
mandates no obligations on performance.

so enjoy your pleasure, its entirely imaginary.
--
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 #80
On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 00:26:30 +0100, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:
so enjoy your pleasure, its entirely imaginary.


Isn't pleasure always? :-)
Nov 14 '05 #81
Paul Mesken <us*****@euronet.nl> writes:
[...]
I just take pleasure in that I was able to drag you into this for so
many off-topic posts, making you a kind of accomplice in my evil ploy.

There you have it. While you thought you were fighting me you were
actually a minion of mine. A mere instrument to bypass kill files, not
to mention a way to increase off topic volume (I'm not a filibuster
like Scott Nudds, I need accomplices). [...]

A couple of things.

You're not nearly as amusing as you think you are. Just my opinion,
of course.

The behavior you describe above is known as trolling. It's considered
extraordinarily rude. It seems clear that you're being facetious, but
it's hard to tell how much truth there is behind what you intend to be
humor. If you really are, or intend to be, a deliberate troll, many
of the regulars will deal with your behavior by killfiling you. In
effect, they will see a newgroup in which you don't exist, because
it's better than one in which you do. I don't use a killfile myself,
but I keep an informal mental list of posters who aren't worth having
conversations with, and reply to them only to protect others from any
misinformation they might post. You are on the verge of joining that
list, which is a pity, because I've actually had some interesting
discussions with you.

And even if someone takes a troller's bait (as I've done myself on
occasion), that's no excuse for imposing your trolling on everyone
else.

The choice is yours. If you want to participate in this group, feel
free to do so. If not, you can go away or you can be ignored.

[...] It's obvious that the "rabid C priests" here like to stick up for each
other and show contempt to Assembly programmers ...

[...]

Not at all. There's nothing wrong with assembly programmers or
assembly language when used appropriately. It just doesn't happen to
be the topic of this newsgroup.

--
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 #82
On Sat, 04 Jun 2005 00:38:37 GMT, Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org>
wrote:
Paul Mesken <us*****@euronet.nl> writes:
[...]
I just take pleasure in that I was able to drag you into this for so
many off-topic posts, making you a kind of accomplice in my evil ploy.

There you have it. While you thought you were fighting me you were
actually a minion of mine. A mere instrument to bypass kill files, not
to mention a way to increase off topic volume (I'm not a filibuster
like Scott Nudds, I need accomplices).[...]

A couple of things.

You're not nearly as amusing as you think you are. Just my opinion,
of course.


One cannot please the whole world but at least I pleased myself ;-)
The behavior you describe above is known as trolling. It's considered
extraordinarily rude.
I agree, especially in this group. But so is name calling (but I don't
see anyone complaining about that, perhaps it's accepted behaviour) so
I just "returned the favor", the best way I know how. Rudeness simply
generates more rudeness, that's why I mentioned Steve Summit's article
about "grumpiness" in c.l.c. It deals with this phenomenon.
It seems clear that you're being facetious, but
it's hard to tell how much truth there is behind what you intend to be
humor. If you really are, or intend to be, a deliberate troll, many
of the regulars will deal with your behavior by killfiling you.


Many of the regulars are grumpy. I don't mind being killfiled by them
at all.
Nov 14 '05 #83

This thread has been closed and replies have been disabled. Please start a new discussion.

Similar topics

3
by: David Douard | last post by:
Hi everybody, let me explain by problem: I am working on an application which consists in a C++ dll (numeric computations) and a Python IHM (Python/Tk), which must run under Linux and win32. My...
2
by: GujuBoy | last post by:
i have the following code...which works fine in UNIX but then i move it over to WINDOWS XP and check the sum on the same file that i tested on unix and i get different results. def...
7
by: Kenjis Kaan | last post by:
I would like to use the crypt function in a Win32 (ie. C program using Visual C++ 6.0 compiler). I wrote a little program to see if it will link but it didn't. So I guess maybe the function isn't...
6
by: ESOJAY | last post by:
Is "typedef long long int64" the best way to define an int64 type in c? Are there better alternatives? Thanks, ESOJAY -- ESOJAY
5
by: jchludzinski | last post by:
I'm using strtok() to parse thru a line and read different numbers: float value; char *token; token = strtok( line, " " ); .... sscanf( token, "%f", &value ); These results are less...
22
by: Superfox il Volpone | last post by:
Hello I have some problem with sscanf, I tryed this code but it doesn't works : char* stringa = "18/2005" char mese; char anno; int i_letture; i_letture = sscanf(stringa, "%2s/%4s",...
8
by: Artemio | last post by:
Dear folks, I need some help with using the sscanf() function. I need to parse a string which has several parameters given in a "A=... B=... C=..." way, and each has a different type (one is a...
20
by: AMP | last post by:
Hello, Anybody know if anything exists like sscanf in c. I found a few things OL but most were pretty old. Maybe something has come along since 2004? Thanks Mike
12
by: Allen | last post by:
My C extension works wrong, and debug it, found that sizeof (INT64) = 4, not 8. I compile on Windows XP platform. Please tell me how to fix it to support INT64? Thanks.
0
by: ryjfgjl | last post by:
ExcelToDatabase: batch import excel into database automatically...
0
isladogs
by: isladogs | last post by:
The next Access Europe meeting will be on Wednesday 6 Mar 2024 starting at 18:00 UK time (6PM UTC) and finishing at about 19:15 (7.15PM). In this month's session, we are pleased to welcome back...
0
by: Vimpel783 | last post by:
Hello! Guys, I found this code on the Internet, but I need to modify it a little. It works well, the problem is this: Data is sent from only one cell, in this case B5, but it is necessary that data...
0
by: jfyes | last post by:
As a hardware engineer, after seeing that CEIWEI recently released a new tool for Modbus RTU Over TCP/UDP filtering and monitoring, I actively went to its official website to take a look. It turned...
0
by: ArrayDB | last post by:
The error message I've encountered is; ERROR:root:Error generating model response: exception: access violation writing 0x0000000000005140, which seems to be indicative of an access violation...
1
by: PapaRatzi | last post by:
Hello, I am teaching myself MS Access forms design and Visual Basic. I've created a table to capture a list of Top 30 singles and forms to capture new entries. The final step is a form (unbound)...
1
by: Shællîpôpï 09 | last post by:
If u are using a keypad phone, how do u turn on JavaScript, to access features like WhatsApp, Facebook, Instagram....
0
by: af34tf | last post by:
Hi Guys, I have a domain whose name is BytesLimited.com, and I want to sell it. Does anyone know about platforms that allow me to list my domain in auction for free. Thank you
0
by: Faith0G | last post by:
I am starting a new it consulting business and it's been a while since I setup a new website. Is wordpress still the best web based software for hosting a 5 page website? The webpages will be...

By using Bytes.com and it's services, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

To disable or enable advertisements and analytics tracking please visit the manage ads & tracking page.