DJ Bernstein's str library

[Peter Davies]

Hi all,

Plagued by the (to me) non-obvious functionality of DJB's str.h library, I
started looking at the source and what I saw took a while to make sense.

Each function runs an infinite loop, which iterates though a char* - in
order to search for needles or calculate a string length or whatever. What
got me was that each of the infinite loops held 4 identical statements:

for (;;) {
if (!*t) break; if (*t == ch) break; ++t;
if (!*t) break; if (*t == ch) break; ++t;
if (!*t) break; if (*t == ch) break; ++t;
if (!*t) break; if (*t == ch) break; ++t;
}
(in str_chr.c) and

for (;;) {
if (!*t) return t - s; ++t;
if (!*t) return t - s; ++t;
if (!*t) return t - s; ++t;
if (!*t) return t - s; ++t;
}
(in str_len.c)

Does anyone have any ideas as to why this is done? All I can think of is
that 4 chars=32bits and that nicely fills a register.

--
Peter Davies

[Poldie]

Isn't it just an example of an unrolled loop, reducing the overhead (if
any) of the test for termination of the for loop?

[Flash Gordon]

Poldie wrote:

Isn't it
Isn't what? Provide context, there is no guarantee that everyone who
sees your post has seen the message you are responding to. Search the
group for "Google context" to find out how much of a problem this is and
how to work around the crap interface Google provide. Then complain at
Google for them making you look like a fool.
just an example of an unrolled loop, reducing the overhead (if
any) of the test for termination of the for loop?

Once upon a time compilers were not very good at optimising. These days
you are generally better off leaving it to the compiler.
--
Flash Gordon
Living in interesting times.
Although my email address says spam, it is real and I read it.

[Jordan Abel]

On 2005-10-27, Flash Gordon <sp**@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote:

Poldie wrote:

Isn't it

Isn't what? Provide context, there is no guarantee that everyone who
sees your post has seen the message you are responding to.

And that is why the References: header was invented.

yes, it's irritating. so is reading people complaining about it.

--
I was half-tempted to not quote you.

[Poldie]

> Provide context, there is no guarantee that everyone who

sees your post etc etc

Yawn. Guess what - I don't care.
Once upon a time compilers were not very good at optimising. These days
you are generally better off leaving it to the compiler.

He wasn't asking if optimization is worth performing 'these days' - he
was asking if perhaps that technique was related to registers, and I
was telling him that I didn't think it was. Your opinion of the
efficiency of current compiler optimization techniques is irrelevant.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <qt************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk>,
Flash Gordon <sp**@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote:

Poldie wrote:

Isn't it

Isn't what? Provide context, there is no guarantee that everyone who
sees your post has seen the message you are responding to. Search the
group for "Google context" to find out how much of a problem this is and
how to work around the crap interface Google provide. Then complain at
Google for them making you look like a fool.

You (and others, such as Keith) are wasting your breath. They'll never get
it. And I'll tell you why.

Imagine that there's a mouse - and the mouse is the Usenet. You and I can
see that it is a mouse and we behave accordingly. But now there is a class
of users (we'll call them "googlers") that are wearing these funny weird
glasses that make them see not a mouse, but an elephant. Seeing an
elephant (i.e., the Usenet as a web page), they also behave accordingly.
And no amount of verbiage from us is going to convince them that it's not
an elephant - that it is only a mouse.

To make this more clear, to a googler, it doesn't make any sense to "quote"
(whatever the heck that is...), in fact, to do would be absurd, when all
the rest of the articles in the thread are right there in front of their
faces (just as clear as the trunk on that mouse, er, elephant). And no
amount of verbiage from us is going to convince them not to believe what
they see. The point is you can *never* convince someone that what they see
isn't reality. The only way you can address the problem is to help them
fix their eyesight (or help them remove their funny glasses).

[Poldie]

> But now there is a class

of users (we'll call them "googlers") that are wearing these funny weird
glasses

There is also a class of users (we'll call them "net nerds") who spend
an inordinate amount of time on the internet, and who seem to suffer
delusions of grandeur which make it very very important to them that
every last character they type is preserved, in perfect context, for
all eternity, and the very thought that some people might be treating
the odd thread in the odd group with less than complete seriousness and
simply trying to answer a poster's question is just beyond the pale.

You are hereby served with the requirement that you admonish 25 Usenet
posters for top-posting in the next 60 minutes. Go get'em, tiger!

[Peter Davies]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 13:20:50 +0000, Kenny McCormack whinged:

In article <qt************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk>,
Flash Gordon <sp**@flash-gordon.me.uk> whinged:

[schnip]

Please continue whinging here. It will help me and others who are
interested in the original thread to differentiate between usefulness and
fluff.

Note that you are not the first to complain about Google and its effect on
Usenet. However much I may agree with your opinions on that topic, it is
in my opinion extremely rude to hijack threads for the purposes of being
bitchy.

--
Peter Davies

[Neil Cerutti]

On 2005-10-27, Poldie <Po****@gmail.com> wrote:

Provide context, there is no guarantee that everyone who
sees your post

etc etc

Yawn. Guess what - I don't care.

It's obviously your right to hold that attitude, but it is only
to your advantage if you prefer being ostracized.

--
Neil Cerutti

[Poldie]

> It's obviously your right to hold that attitude, but it is only

to your advantage if you prefer being ostracized.

Who are you calling an ostrich?

[Ian Malone]

Poldie wrote:

But now there is a class
of users (we'll call them "googlers") that are wearing these funny weird
glasses

There is also a class of users (we'll call them "net nerds") who spend

Googlers is a better pun.
an inordinate amount of time on the internet, and who seem to suffer
delusions of grandeur which make it very very important to them that
every last character they type is preserved, in perfect context, for
all eternity, and the very thought that some people might be treating
the odd thread in the odd group with less than complete seriousness and
simply trying to answer a poster's question is just beyond the pale.

Actually, it's exactly the opposite. News servers throw away old
posts, google keeps them. If someone replys to a thread from last
week without context I haven't a clue what they're talking about
(since I use thunderbird and a news server). I'm not going to
bother looking for the context in google, because it will often
be a waste of time, so I ignore it.

Remember that posts are write once read many. The normal rule of
good writing therefore applys; people won't read what you have
written unless you make it easy for them.

(And, finally, odds-on the poster will remember what they wrote;
no-one else will. If you want a conversation rather than a
discussion there's always email.)

--
imalone

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <pa****************************@yahoo.co.uk>,
Peter Davies <pe******@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
....

Note that you are not the first to complain about Google and its effect on
Usenet. However much I may agree with your opinions on that topic, it is
in my opinion extremely rude to hijack threads for the purposes of being
bitchy.

Um, point taken. But my point is that's exactly what the repetitive
bitching, by the "regulars", which boils down to "Don't respond as if
you're responding from Google" (which, as they are, is obviously the
natural [and, dare I say, proper] thing for them to do), amounts to.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <sl*********************@FIAD06.norwich.edu>,
Neil Cerutti <le*******@email.com> wrote:

On 2005-10-27, Poldie <Po****@gmail.com> wrote:

Provide context, there is no guarantee that everyone who
sees your post

etc etc

Yawn. Guess what - I don't care.

It's obviously your right to hold that attitude, but it is only
to your advantage if you prefer being ostracized.

Or admired by myself and others like me.

[Poldie]

> Googlers is a better pun.

Depends upon what you're punning - I was punning on Googlers, in which
case using the same word wouldn't really have had the same hilarious
comedic effect.

Actually, it's exactly the opposite. News servers throw away old
posts, google keeps them. If someone replys to a thread from last
week without context I haven't a clue what they're talking about
If they have my response then they'll almost certainly have the
original post, especially if - as in this case - the response is posted
soon after the original post.
If you want a conversation rather than a discussion there's always email

Maybe later.

[Default User]

Jordan Abel wrote:

On 2005-10-27, Flash Gordon <sp**@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote:

Poldie wrote:

Isn't it
Isn't what? Provide context, there is no guarantee that everyone
who sees your post has seen the message you are responding to.

And that is why the References: header was invented.

Bull.
yes, it's irritating. so is reading people complaining about it.

The main way the new Google users (which are flooding usenet) are going
to find out how to behave properly is if people instruct them. You are
in the wrong here.
Brian
--
Please quote enough of the previous message for context. To do so from
Google, click "show options" and use the Reply shown in the expanded
header.

[Default User]

Poldie wrote:

Provide context, there is no guarantee that everyone who
sees your post

etc etc

Yawn. Guess what - I don't care.

*plonk*

Brian

[Default User]

Peter Davies wrote:

Please continue whinging here. It will help me and others who are
interested in the original thread to differentiate between usefulness
and fluff.

*plonk*

Brian

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <3s************@individual.net>,
Default User <de***********@yahoo.com> wrote:
....

The main way the new Google users (which are flooding usenet) are going
to find out how to behave properly is if people instruct them. You are
in the wrong here.

Agreed, in principle.

But, with Google as with all things Microsoft, in a very short while, it's
just not going to matter.

[Martin Ambuhl]

Poldie wrote:

Provide context, there is no guarantee that everyone who
sees your post

etc etc

Yawn. Guess what - I don't care.

Guess what - you have just shown your disdain for the other readers of
this newsgroup. Good luck with any questions you might have in the
future. The people who know the answers but whom you have told to fuck
off will not be reading your posts.

*PLONK*

[Keith Thompson]

"Poldie" <Po****@gmail.com> writes:

Provide context, there is no guarantee that everyone who
sees your post

etc etc

Yawn. Guess what - I don't care.

You probably think you don't need to care because you read this
newsgroup through Google. Google provides a badly flawed interface,
but one of its virtues is that it makes it easy to see previous
articles. The majority of us, including most of the regulars, *don't*
use Google, so we can't see older articles as easily as you can.

Those who don't take the time to show some consideration for the rest
of us are far less likely to be able to participate in any meaningful
way.

--
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.

[Mark McIntyre]

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:48:27 GMT, in comp.lang.c ,
ga*****@yin.interaccess.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:

In article <3s************@individual.net>,
Default User <de***********@yahoo.com> wrote:
...

The main way the new Google users (which are flooding usenet) are going
to find out how to behave properly is if people instruct them. You are
in the wrong here.

Agreed, in principle.

But, with Google as with all things Microsoft, in a very short while, it's
just not going to matter.

Just because some people think its a losing battle, is no reason to
give up.
--
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 =----

[Old Wolf]

Peter Davies wrote:

for (;;) {
if (!*t) break; if (*t == ch) break; ++t;
if (!*t) break; if (*t == ch) break; ++t;
if (!*t) break; if (*t == ch) break; ++t;
if (!*t) break; if (*t == ch) break; ++t;
}

for (;;) {
if (!*t) return t - s; ++t;
if (!*t) return t - s; ++t;
if (!*t) return t - s; ++t;
if (!*t) return t - s; ++t;
}

Does anyone have any ideas as to why this is done?

Back to the topic at hand...

It is reminiscent of an unrolled loop, but I don't see what
benefit there is. It just looks like a waste of code space
at best.

Normally, unrolled loops are used when it is performing
a set number of iterations -- so you can say do 4 iterations
per loop, so you only need to test the termination condition
1/4 of the time. But these loops are testing the termination
condition every time so it seems there is no advantage.

[Keith Thompson]

Peter Davies <pe******@yahoo.co.uk> writes:

Plagued by the (to me) non-obvious functionality of DJB's str.h library, I
started looking at the source and what I saw took a while to make sense.

Each function runs an infinite loop, which iterates though a char* - in
order to search for needles or calculate a string length or whatever. What
got me was that each of the infinite loops held 4 identical statements:

for (;;) {
if (!*t) break; if (*t == ch) break; ++t;
if (!*t) break; if (*t == ch) break; ++t;
if (!*t) break; if (*t == ch) break; ++t;
if (!*t) break; if (*t == ch) break; ++t;
}
(in str_chr.c) and

for (;;) {
if (!*t) return t - s; ++t;
if (!*t) return t - s; ++t;
if (!*t) return t - s; ++t;
if (!*t) return t - s; ++t;
}
(in str_len.c)

Does anyone have any ideas as to why this is done? All I can think of is
that 4 chars=32bits and that nicely fills a register.

It's a form of loop unrolling, but I doubt that it's going to do much
good. Normally loop unrolling allows you to avoid the expense of a
test-and-branch on each iteration, but this code does that anyway
(though it avoids 75% of the unconditional branches back to the top of
the loop).

It's possible, but unlikely, that this will be faster than a more
straightforward loop.

I doubt that 4 iterations per loop is based on 4 bytes per word; more
likely it happens to be optimal in the environment in which the code
was developed.

--
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.

[Default User]

Mark McIntyre wrote:

On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:48:27 GMT, in comp.lang.c ,
ga*****@yin.interaccess.com (Kenny McCormack) wrote:

In article <3s************@individual.net>,
Default User <de***********@yahoo.com> wrote:
...

The main way the new Google users (which are flooding usenet) are
going to find out how to behave properly is if people instruct
them. You are in the wrong here.

Agreed, in principle.

But, with Google as with all things Microsoft, in a very short
while, it's just not going to matter.

Just because some people think its a losing battle, is no reason to
give up.

I don't believe it's a losing battle either. Google makes it tough on
new users to do the right thing by hiding the information. Most of the
ones here have switched once informed.
Brian

--
Please quote enough of the previous message for context. To do so from
Google, click "show options" and use the Reply shown in the expanded
header.

[Jack Klein]

On 27 Oct 2005 06:14:46 -0700, "Poldie" <Po****@gmail.com> wrote in
comp.lang.c:

Provide context, there is no guarantee that everyone who
sees your post

etc etc

Yawn. Guess what - I don't care.

[snip]

*plonk*

--
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

[Jordan Abel]

On 2005-10-27, Martin Ambuhl <ma*****@earthlink.net> wrote:

Poldie wrote:

Provide context, there is no guarantee that everyone who sees
your post

etc etc

Yawn. Guess what - I don't care.

Guess what - you have just shown your disdain for the other
readers of this newsgroup. Good luck with any questions you might
have in the future. The people who know the answers but whom you
have told to fuck off will not be reading your posts.

What are you on about? He didn't tell _you_ to "fuck off" - and,
yes, it's annoying, but it's not like his post didn't have a
References header. It's more annoying to read half a dozen posts
complaining about it than to hit alt-p and fetch the original post
in the first place. He might also have been more inclined to listen
to a friendly "Here's how to get google to let you quote context -
you know, for future reference" then what was basically "go to hell,
you're an asshole for not quoting and oh you wanna know how? search
the goddamn web yourself - and by the way the ideas in your post
also suck". If anyone was told "fuck off" by anyone first, it was
him.

[Jordan Abel]

On 2005-10-27, Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.org> wrote:

"Poldie" <Po****@gmail.com> writes:

Provide context, there is no guarantee that everyone who
sees your post etc etc

Yawn. Guess what - I don't care.

You probably think you don't need to care because you read this
newsgroup through Google. Google provides a badly flawed
interface, but one of its virtues is that it makes it easy to see
previous articles. The majority of us, including most of the
regulars, *don't* use Google, so we can't see older articles as
easily as you can.

I can hit meta-p to fetch previous article, or t to show all headers
then meta-l to fetch by message-id. I'm sure that *checks* pan has a
feature analogous to the second, even if not the first.

And yes, I'll agree that he was in the wrong - but "Poldie" was
downright rude about it. There was no need to be confrontational at
that stage.
Those who don't take the time to show some consideration for the
rest of us are far less likely to be able to participate in any
meaningful way.

How about this:

"Hey, you didn't quote the message text... While I'm sure you didn't
mean to but please keep in mind that others can't see it - I see
you're using google groups. To get google groups to properly quote
text you can <do this>."

[Jordan Abel]

On 2005-10-27, Default User <de***********@yahoo.com> wrote:

Peter Davies wrote:

Please continue whinging here. It will help me and others who are
interested in the original thread to differentiate between
usefulness and fluff.

*plonk*

There is something inherently trollish about shouting "plonk!" as if
anyone cares. He had a very good point - you and others decided to
harp on this one technical mistake while ignoring the interesting
issue brought up in the thread itself. Also, there was no reason to
be as mean about it as - IIRC "Flash Gordon" - was in the first
response.

Brian

Also, if you want to get technical about usenet etiquette, how about
putting a proper dash before your sig? it's "-- \n".

[Jordan Abel]

On 2005-10-27, Default User <de***********@yahoo.com> wrote:

Jordan Abel wrote:

On 2005-10-27, Flash Gordon <sp**@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote:

> Poldie wrote:
>> Isn't it
>
> Isn't what? Provide context, there is no guarantee that
> everyone who sees your post has seen the message you are
> responding to.
And that is why the References: header was invented.

Bull.

yes, it's irritating. so is reading people complaining about it.

The main way the new Google users (which are flooding usenet) are
going to find out how to behave properly is if people instruct
them. You are in the wrong here.

"Your post is wrong and you are an asshole for posting it" is not
"instruction" by any stretch of the imagination


Brian

Repeat after me: hyphen hyphen space newline.

Normally I wouldn't bother, but you know what they say about casting
the first stone and all that.

--
Like this, see?

[pete]

Jordan Abel wrote:

you are an asshole Repeat after me:

I'd rather not.

--
pete

[pete]

Kenny McCormack wrote:

In article <sl*********************@FIAD06.norwich.edu>,
Neil Cerutti <le*******@email.com> wrote:

It's obviously your right to hold that attitude, but it is only
to your advantage if you prefer being ostracized.

Or admired by myself and others like me.

They mostly post on alt.fan.karl-malden.nose

--
pete

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

Jordan Abel <jm****@purdue.edu> wrote:

I can hit meta-p to fetch previous article, or t to show all headers
then meta-l to fetch by message-id. I'm sure that *checks* pan has a
feature analogous to the second, even if not the first.
Even if the previous article is available (it usually is, for me),
interspersing quotes and the responses to those quotes (as in this
post) makes for vastly more intuitive reading. Not to mention that
toggling back and forth between a reply and the original post(s) is,
at least with tin, distinctly annoying.
"Hey, you didn't quote the message text... While I'm sure you didn't
mean to but please keep in mind that others can't see it - I see
you're using google groups. To get google groups to properly quote
text you can <do this>."

Considering the vast number of times Keith and others have already
described the proper Google posting procedure, it's hard to blame them
for getting testy.

--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.

[Dik T. Winter]

In article <sl*******************@random.yi.org> Jordan Abel <jm****@purdue.edu> writes:
....

He had a very good point - you and others decided to
harp on this one technical mistake while ignoring the interesting
issue brought up in the thread itself.

But you and some others ignore the possibility that the posting to
which it was an answer never did arrive at the newsserver you are using.
Or where it arrives later, possibly after you have read the response.

There are other possibilities where a context-less reply is unreadable.
For instance when you read the original the day before and in the
plethora of threads you are following you have no idea what it is a
response to.

BTW, when you look in google groups you will find that even there some
threads are seriously broken.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, [phone]
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/

[Christopher Benson-Manica]

Jordan Abel <jm****@purdue.edu> wrote:

There is something inherently trollish about shouting "plonk!" as if
anyone cares.
I really fail to see how a "plonk" can be considered trollish, as by
its nature it prevents the plonker from enjoying the plonked poster's
response.
Also, there was no reason to
be as mean about it as - IIRC "Flash Gordon" - was in the first
response.

The bulk of Flash's ire was directed at Google, not the OP.
Frustration can set in at times.

--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.

[Jan Richter]

"Peter Davies" <pe******@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

[...]

Does anyone have any ideas as to why this is done? All I can think of is
that 4 chars=32bits and that nicely fills a register.

Some keywords for you to consider are: " Branch-Prediction", " pipelining",
"loop-unrolling"
Wikipedia explains them excellent, and help me understanding.

apart from my earlier posting in this group <3m*************@individual.net>
I've learned a bit more about DJB's coding style.

He did that as a try to reduce the number of loops, mainly for older/bad
Compilers,
and for older Hardware.At the time where DJB wrote that code (mid 90s)
Hardware
and compilers are not that good (in optimizing) as they're today.
Because of nowadays "super-scalar" Hardware, and the available well
optimizing
Compilers I guess there is no real need to use such "hand-optimized" code.
My benchmarks on a 486-DX66 CPU, with DJB's str_len() function confirming
that.
There was no difference in using them on a state of the art Pentium IV CPU.

Cheers,
JR

[Flash Gordon]

Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:

Jordan Abel <jm****@purdue.edu> wrote:
<snip>

Also, there was no reason to
be as mean about it as - IIRC "Flash Gordon" - was in the first
response.

The bulk of Flash's ire was directed at Google, not the OP.

The bulk was, and indeed is, directed at Google. IIRC I said something
along the lines of "complain at Google for making you look like..."
rather than "you are..."
Frustration can set in at times.

Which, indeed, is why I am sometimes a bit short with people. Sometimes
I'm in a good enough mood to dig out the instructions and post them.

However, I try when possible to also provide feedback on what is said in
the post as well as pointing out the problem of lack of context.
--
Flash Gordon
Living in interesting times.
Although my email address says spam, it is real and I read it.

[Poldie]

> And yes, I'll agree that he was in the wrong - but "Poldie" was

downright rude about it. There was no need to be confrontational at
that stage.

I'd already been told I looked like a fool at that point though, hadn't
I? There was no need to say that I looked like a fool just because I'd
dared to reply without quoting and trimming the post to which I was
responding. Other people have since been far ruder, including
inventing that I'd told people to f*** off etc.

Plonking's got to hurt though, right? If only there was a way of
posting to a Usenet group under a different name...

[Jordan Abel]

On 2005-10-28, Poldie <Po****@gmail.com> wrote:

And yes, I'll agree that he was in the wrong - but "Poldie" was
downright rude about it. There was no need to be confrontational at
that stage.

I'd already been told I looked like a fool at that point though, hadn't
I? There was no need to say that I looked like a fool just because I'd
dared to reply without quoting and trimming the post to which I was
responding. Other people have since been far ruder, including
inventing that I'd told people to f*** off etc.

I myself have a bad 'habit' of not keeping good track of who said what and who
i'm responding to, and getting messed up when the format of attributed text etc
doesn't quite fit my expectations. This is entirely my fault. In this case, I
used your name when I in fact meant "Flash Gordon"

[Jordan Abel]

On 2005-10-28, Flash Gordon <sp**@flash-gordon.me.uk> wrote:

Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:

Jordan Abel <jm****@purdue.edu> wrote:

<snip>

Also, there was no reason to be as mean about it as - IIRC "Flash
Gordon" - was in the first response.

The bulk of Flash's ire was directed at Google, not the OP.

The bulk was, and indeed is, directed at Google. IIRC I said
something along the lines of "complain at Google for making you
look like..." rather than "you are..."

Frustration can set in at times.

Which, indeed, is why I am sometimes a bit short with people.
Sometimes I'm in a good enough mood to dig out the instructions
and post them.

However, I try when possible to also provide feedback on what is
said in the post as well as pointing out the problem of lack of
context.

Regardless, the damage is done. I counted at least 3-4 people who
plonked him, when in this case I think he really didn't deserve it.
In any case, he seems to have learned his lesson about the quoting,
but the people who plonked him seemed to do so more due to his
reaction at being called on it than for the action itself, perhaps
assuming wrongly that he wouldn't have complained unless he intended
to continue his behavior in the future.

Another factor in this is that google runs its own forums using the
same interface [I won't common on whether this was a good decision
on their part]

[Poldie]

> Regardless, the damage is done. I counted at least 3-4 people who

plonked him, when in this case I think he really didn't deserve it.
In any case, he seems to have learned his lesson about the quoting,
but the people who plonked him seemed to do so more due to his
reaction at being called on it than for the action itself, perhaps
assuming wrongly that he wouldn't have complained unless he intended
to continue his behavior in the future.

It is rather amazing, isn't it. The people who plonked me evidently
believe I was telling the group as a whole that I don't care for any of
the conventions of Usenet, rather than just telling one person who'd
insulted me and posted a non-sequitor
where to get off.

I've read and posted to Usenet for years now and usually quote and trim
posts I reply to, I don't top-post etc - I just lapsed because I wasn't
thinking about it too much and I was using Google rather than
Thunderbird.

I used to laugh at the `campaign for grumpiness where grumpiness is
due` sig-files but now it's being directed at me it's not so funny...!
Apologies to anyone I genuinely offended!

[Jordan Abel]

On 2005-10-28, Poldie <Po****@gmail.com> wrote:

It is rather amazing, isn't it. The people who plonked me
evidently believe I was telling the group as a whole that I don't
care for any of the conventions of Usenet, rather than just
telling one person who'd insulted me and posted a non-sequitor
where to get off.

People are going to be pissed off at me for quoting this, but I feel
I have a duty to do so in light of the fact that [I believe] this
was a genuine misunderstanding.

[Flash Gordon]

Poldie wrote:

<snip>

It is rather amazing, isn't it. The people who plonked me evidently
believe I was telling the group as a whole that I don't care for any of
the conventions of Usenet, rather than just telling one person who'd
insulted me and posted a non-sequitor
where to get off.
I said to complain at Google for making you look like a fool, I did not
say you are one (I've checked in Google). The fact that you already knew
how to post (based on what you say further down) makes it even more a
case of Google making you look like a fool. You then snipped it back to:

|> Provide context, there is no guarantee that everyone who
|> sees your post
|
|etc etc
|
|Yawn. Guess what - I don't care.

Which reads as you saying that you don't care about whether other people
know what you are respond to. It was in response to that you received
your first plonk.

If you object to the way I phased it or think I insulted you then you
should say that rather than saying that you don't care about whether
people can tell when you are replying to.
I've read and posted to Usenet for years now and usually quote and trim
posts I reply to, I don't top-post etc - I just lapsed because I wasn't
thinking about it too much and I was using Google rather than
Thunderbird.
So complain at Google for providing a broken interface instead of at
people for calling you on bad posting style.
I used to laugh at the `campaign for grumpiness where grumpiness is
due` sig-files but now it's being directed at me it's not so funny...!
It is not `campaign for grumpiness where grumpiness is due` it is an
attempt to educate people in how to make their posts legible.
Apologies to anyone I genuinely offended!

I'm not so easily offended.
--
Flash Gordon
Living in interesting times.
Although my email address says spam, it is real and I read it.

[Dave Vandervies]

In article <Ip********@cwi.nl>, Dik T. Winter <Di********@cwi.nl> wrote:

In article <sl*******************@random.yi.org> Jordan Abel
<jm****@purdue.edu> writes:
...

He had a very good point - you and others decided to
harp on this one technical mistake while ignoring the interesting
issue brought up in the thread itself.

But you and some others ignore the possibility that the posting to
which it was an answer never did arrive at the newsserver you are using.
Or where it arrives later, possibly after you have read the response.

There are other possibilities where a context-less reply is unreadable.
For instance when you read the original the day before and in the
plethora of threads you are following you have no idea what it is a
response to.

....especially since a lot of nothing-quoted replies are actually
commenting on something other than the articles referred to in the
References header.
Yeah, my newsswerver has the article you[1] followed-up to. I've even
gone back to re-read that article (which I shouldn't have to do, because,
well, I can't if my newsswerver has been swerving far enough to miss it).
That hasn't helped me figure out what you're talking about. I could
go back and read all 200[2] articles in the thread, but if it's not
important enough to you[3] that you make your article comprehensible
(by providing context, or writing in some reasonable approximation to
standard English, or whatever), why should it be important enough to me
to try to decrypt it?
dave

[1] Generic 'you', not referring to anybody in this thread (at least not yet).
[2] Quite small, compared to a lot of interesting threads.
[3] Another generic 'you', often but not always the same one as in [1].

--
Dave Vandervies dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
Since we like to argue a lot on comp.lang.c figuring out who said what
and when is very important, so we can properly scoff at the right person.
--Daniel Fox in comp.lang.c

[Ben Pfaff]

Flash Gordon <sp**@flash-gordon.me.uk> writes:

Poldie wrote:

I used to laugh at the `campaign for grumpiness where grumpiness is
due` sig-files but now it's being directed at me it's not so funny...!

It is not `campaign for grumpiness where grumpiness is due` it is an
attempt to educate people in how to make their posts legible.

The "campaign for grumpiness where grumpiness is due" was
probably before your time in comp.lang.c, so you may not
recognize the reference. I was a supporter. These days, I care
less about such things.
--
char a[]="\n .CJacehknorstu";int putchar(int);int main(void){unsigned long b[]
={0x67dffdff,0x9aa9aa6a,0xa77ffda9,0x7da6aa6a,0xa6 7f6aaa,0xaa9aa9f6,0x1f6},*p=
b,x,i=24;for(;p+=!*p;*p/=4)switch(x=*p&3)case 0:{return 0;for(p--;i--;i--)case
2:{i++;if(1)break;else default:continue;if(0)case 1:putchar(a[i&15]);break;}}}

[Default User]

Jordan Abel wrote:

Regardless, the damage is done. I counted at least 3-4 people who
plonked him, when in this case I think he really didn't deserve it.
He absolutely deserved it.
In any case, he seems to have learned his lesson about the quoting,
but the people who plonked him seemed to do so more due to his
reaction at being called on it than for the action itself, perhaps
assuming wrongly that he wouldn't have complained unless he intended
to continue his behavior in the future.

It's my experience that if someone is a jackass when you nicely ask
them to stop something annoying, that person will continue to be a
jackass about other things.

Brian

--
Please quote enough of the previous message for context. To do so from
Google, click "show options" and use the Reply shown in the expanded
header.

[Default User]

Jordan Abel wrote:

On 2005-10-27, Default User <de***********@yahoo.com> wrote:

The main way the new Google users (which are flooding usenet) are
going to find out how to behave properly is if people instruct
them. You are in the wrong here.

"Your post is wrong and you are an asshole for posting it" is not
"instruction" by any stretch of the imagination

This is a lie. Neither I nor anyone else posted anything like this.

Repeat after me: hyphen hyphen space newline.

What about it? My .sig has that. I choose to make my name part of the
regular post, because my moniker is somewhat distinct from it.
--
Please quote enough of the previous message for context. To do so from
Google, click "show options" and use the Reply shown in the expanded
header.

[Jordan Abel]

On 2005-10-28, Default User <de***********@yahoo.com> wrote:

Jordan Abel wrote:

"Your post is wrong and you are an asshole for posting it" is not
"instruction" by any stretch of the imagination

This is a lie. Neither I nor anyone else posted anything like this.

He took offense, and my point was that it was [apparently] the
reason for his reaction. Whether it was intended that was is
immaterial.

Repeat after me: hyphen hyphen space newline.

What about it? My .sig has that. I choose to make my name part of
the regular post, because my moniker is somewhat distinct from it.

You have no sig attached other than the dashless one with your name
in it - and in any case, why not put it in a proper sig? It's not
like people won't be able to see it. I'm not normally so pedantic,
but calling you out on that was intended to make a point.

[Dave Vandervies]

In article <sl*******************@random.yi.org>,
Jordan Abel <jm****@purdue.edu> wrote:

On 2005-10-28, Default User <de***********@yahoo.com> wrote:

Jordan Abel wrote:

Repeat after me: hyphen hyphen space newline.

What about it? My .sig has that. I choose to make my name part of
the regular post, because my moniker is somewhat distinct from it.

You have no sig attached other than the dashless one with your name
in it -

Oh? What do you call this, then?
--------
--
Please quote enough of the previous message for context. To do so from
Google, click "show options" and use the Reply shown in the expanded
header.
--------
Sure looks like a .sig to me.
dave

--
Dave Vandervies dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca
Since we like to argue a lot on comp.lang.c figuring out who said what
and when is very important, so we can properly scoff at the right person.
--Daniel Fox in comp.lang.c

[Jordan Abel]

On 2005-10-28, Dave Vandervies <dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

You have no sig attached other than the dashless one with your name
in it -
Oh? What do you call this, then?

[snipped] Sure looks like a .sig to me.

A "pseudo-sig" written to fit the particular post. It wasn't
attached to his other posts.

--
I do it all the time, see?

[Keith Thompson]

"Poldie" <Po****@gmail.com> writes:

Regardless, the damage is done. I counted at least 3-4 people who
plonked him, when in this case I think he really didn't deserve it.
In any case, he seems to have learned his lesson about the quoting,
but the people who plonked him seemed to do so more due to his
reaction at being called on it than for the action itself, perhaps
assuming wrongly that he wouldn't have complained unless he intended
to continue his behavior in the future.

It is rather amazing, isn't it. The people who plonked me evidently
believe I was telling the group as a whole that I don't care for any of
the conventions of Usenet, rather than just telling one person who'd
insulted me and posted a non-sequitor
where to get off.

That was indeed the impression I got; I'm glad to see that wasn't your
intent.

One more thing: please don't snip attributions. The quoted text
starting with "Regardless, the damage is done" was written by Jordan
Abel, but I couldn't tell that from your followup. I know Google
provides proper attribution lines if you jump through their hoops.

--
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.