Need recommendations for code modularization

[ern]

I inherited a huge C application and most of it is in one file. I'd
like to modularize it into several different files. Is there a good
resource for learning the best way to link C files together... and
maybe some good conventions to use?

Thanks,

[Karl Malbrain]

ern wrote:

I inherited a huge C application and most of it is in one file. I'd
like to modularize it into several different files. Is there a good
resource for learning the best way to link C files together... and
maybe some good conventions to use?

Places to start:

1) global variables: divide the functions by the variables they access.
2) structure definitions: divide the functions by the structures they
use.

Hope this helps. karl m

[Ian]

ern wrote:

I inherited a huge C application and most of it is in one file. I'd
like to modularize it into several different files. Is there a good
resource for learning the best way to link C files together... and
maybe some good conventions to use?

Your compiler manuals?

Look for logical groupings of functions and variables and keep them
together in the new files.

The biggest problem you will find will be converting between static
variables (or functions) in the one file to global/shared across many
files. You will either have to make things global, or create some form
of encapsulation, depending or you style preference. In my experience,
the pain will lead to a better design, but you had better have a good
set of tests before you start the process.

Ian

[matt]

I am currently going through the same thing. I have been trying to
make accessors and mutator functions that act on the global variables.
Also, I have been using a program called Understand for C++ by
Scientific Toolworks Inc (www.scitools.com). It generates a lot of
information about your code. For example if you click on a variable it
tells you were it is defined, used and modified. It tells you what
functions call other functions. It has saved me a great deal of time,
although the cost was a little step.

[Chuck F.]

matt wrote:

I am currently going through the same thing. I have been trying
Same thing as what? Without context you make no sense. See my sig
below. Please be sure to read the URL before posting again.
to make accessors and mutator functions that act on the global
variables. Also, I have been using a program called Understand
There are no such things in C.
for C++ by Scientific Toolworks Inc (www.scitools.com). It
C++ is another language, found down the hall to the right.
generates a lot of information about your code. For example if
you click on a variable it tells you were it is defined, used
and modified. It tells you what functions call other functions.
It has saved me a great deal of time, although the cost was a
little step.

It is remotely possible that with context your comments could have
been topical. Without it, they are just off topic nonsense here.

--
"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
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>

[Keith Thompson]

"Chuck F. " <cb********@yahoo.com> writes:

matt wrote:

I am currently going through the same thing. I have been trying
Same thing as what? Without context you make no sense. See my sig
below. Please be sure to read the URL before posting again.

[snip]
--
"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
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>

I suggest updating the boilerplate slightly. It's been brought to my
attention that there's another workaround for Google's interface
problems, one that might be more convenient for some users. Rather
than going through the "show options" link, you can:

Click the "Reply" link at the bottom of the article.
Click the "Preview" button.
Click the "Edit Message" button.

Chris F.A. Johnson has updated his web page to reflect this.

Since Google users are going to be viewing this from their web
browsers anyway, it's probably sufficient just to point to Chris's web
page rather than repeating the instructions.

--
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.

[Chuck F.]

Keith Thompson wrote:

[snip]

I suggest updating the boilerplate slightly. It's been brought to my
attention that there's another workaround for Google's interface
problems, one that might be more convenient for some users. Rather
than going through the "show options" link, you can:

Click the "Reply" link at the bottom of the article.
Click the "Preview" button.
Click the "Edit Message" button.

Chris F.A. Johnson has updated his web page to reflect this.

Since Google users are going to be viewing this from their web
browsers anyway, it's probably sufficient just to point to Chris's web
page rather than repeating the instructions.

I'm not sure I agree. I suspect the googler doesn't want to break
off whatever thread he is reading to check another webpage,
although they probably can without harm on most browsers. Thus I
think having a suitable mechanism right under their noses will help.

I gather that the new method is simply another alternative, and
requires conscious effort, rather than being the default. This is
stupid, because nobody wants to wait for more intermediate pages to
arrive.
--
"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
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>

[Randy Howard]

Chuck F. wrote
(in article <gd******************************@maineline.net> ):

Keith Thompson wrote:

[snip]

I suggest updating the boilerplate slightly. It's been brought to my
attention that there's another workaround for Google's interface
problems, one that might be more convenient for some users. Rather
than going through the "show options" link, you can:

Click the "Reply" link at the bottom of the article.
Click the "Preview" button.
Click the "Edit Message" button.

Chris F.A. Johnson has updated his web page to reflect this.

Since Google users are going to be viewing this from their web
browsers anyway, it's probably sufficient just to point to Chris's web
page rather than repeating the instructions.

I'm not sure I agree. I suspect the googler doesn't want to break
off whatever thread he is reading to check another webpage,
although they probably can without harm on most browsers. Thus I
think having a suitable mechanism right under their noses will help.

BTW, I seem to remember that Google snips sigs ENTIRELY when
displayed in their web interface. As such, when you post text
in your sig on how to work around google interface issues, they
may never see it at all.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
How 'bout them Horns?

[mensanator]

Randy Howard wrote:

Chuck F. wrote
(in article <gd******************************@maineline.net> ):

Keith Thompson wrote:

[snip]

I suggest updating the boilerplate slightly. It's been brought to my
attention that there's another workaround for Google's interface
problems, one that might be more convenient for some users. Rather
than going through the "show options" link, you can:

Click the "Reply" link at the bottom of the article.
Click the "Preview" button.
Click the "Edit Message" button.

Chris F.A. Johnson has updated his web page to reflect this.

Since Google users are going to be viewing this from their web
browsers anyway, it's probably sufficient just to point to Chris's web
page rather than repeating the instructions.
I'm not sure I agree. I suspect the googler doesn't want to break
off whatever thread he is reading to check another webpage,
although they probably can without harm on most browsers. Thus I
think having a suitable mechanism right under their noses will help.

BTW, I seem to remember that Google snips sigs ENTIRELY when
displayed in their web interface.

No, it doesn't.
As such, when you post text
in your sig on how to work around google interface issues, they
may never see it at all.
In fact, I get yelled at because not only are they displayed,
but they are included in the quoting.


--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw
How 'bout them Horns?

[Richard Heathfield]

Chuck F. said:

Thus I
think having a suitable mechanism right under their noses will help.

(Subject line: "Housebreaking googlers")

Did you mean "Housetraining"? In the UK at least, "housebreaking" has a
completely different meaning.

I can't help thinking of a guy in a black beret, a mask over the eyes, a
hooped yellow-and-black jersey, a coarse sack with "SWAG" written on it in
large black letters, a jemmy or crowbar, and a laptop. Presumably he only
has dial-up at home, is disgusted with his phone bill, and would therefore
rather use someone else's landline for his surfing.

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

[Logan Shaw]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Chuck F. said:

Thus I
think having a suitable mechanism right under their noses will help.

(Subject line: "Housebreaking googlers")

Did you mean "Housetraining"? In the UK at least, "housebreaking" has a
completely different meaning.

Nope, in the US, "housebroken" describes a pet which has been trained
to deal with its bodily functions in a way that's appropriate for
indoor life. And "housebreaking" is the verb form.

"housebreaking" isn't really used in the US to refer to breaking into
a house. It's just called "breaking in" or "burglarizing" or "robbing".

- Logan

[Randy Howard]

me********@aol.com wrote
(in article
<11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>):

Randy Howard wrote:

Chuck F. wrote
(in article <gd******************************@maineline.net> ):

Keith Thompson wrote:

[snip]

I suggest updating the boilerplate slightly. It's been brought to my
attention that there's another workaround for Google's interface
problems, one that might be more convenient for some users. Rather
than going through the "show options" link, you can:

Click the "Reply" link at the bottom of the article.
Click the "Preview" button.
Click the "Edit Message" button.

Chris F.A. Johnson has updated his web page to reflect this.

Since Google users are going to be viewing this from their web
browsers anyway, it's probably sufficient just to point to Chris's web
page rather than repeating the instructions.

I'm not sure I agree. I suspect the googler doesn't want to break
off whatever thread he is reading to check another webpage,
although they probably can without harm on most browsers. Thus I
think having a suitable mechanism right under their noses will help.

BTW, I seem to remember that Google snips sigs ENTIRELY when
displayed in their web interface.

No, it doesn't.

As such, when you post text
in your sig on how to work around google interface issues, they
may never see it at all.

In fact, I get yelled at because not only are they displayed,
but they are included in the quoting.

Hmmm, I am either misremembering then, or maybe only when you
search the archive you get this behavior? I distinctly remember
sigs being missing somewhere in the google interface.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

[ozbear]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 06:35:17 +0000 (UTC), Richard Heathfield
<in*****@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Chuck F. said:

Thus I
think having a suitable mechanism right under their noses will help.

(Subject line: "Housebreaking googlers")

Did you mean "Housetraining"? In the UK at least, "housebreaking" has a
completely different meaning.

<snip>

No, he probably meant what he said. "Housebreak" is a common term for
training a pet not to urinate or defecate is one's house.

Look it up.

Oz
--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

[Mark McIntyre]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 22:10:20 GMT, in comp.lang.c , oz****@bigpond.com
(ozbear) wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 06:35:17 +0000 (UTC), Richard Heathfield
<in*****@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Chuck F. said:

Did you mean "Housetraining"? In the UK at least, "housebreaking" has a
completely different meaning.

No, he probably meant what he said. "Housebreak" is a common term for
training a pet not to urinate or defecate is one's house.

RJH's point was that in UK English, the word for that is "housetrain"
whereas housebreaking is burglary.
Mark McIntyre
--

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-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 =----

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

On 2006-01-14, ozbear wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 06:35:17 +0000 (UTC), Richard Heathfield
<in*****@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Chuck F. said:

Thus I
think having a suitable mechanism right under their noses will help.

(Subject line: "Housebreaking googlers")

Did you mean "Housetraining"? In the UK at least, "housebreaking" has a
completely different meaning.

<snip>

No, he probably meant what he said. "Housebreak" is a common term for
training a pet not to urinate or defecate is one's house.

My Oxford Concise gives "housebreaker" = "burglar", hence
housebreaking as breaking into houses, but gives "house-broken" =
"house-trained".

--
Chris F.A. Johnson, author | <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
Shell Scripting Recipes: | My code in this post, if any,
A Problem-Solution Approach | is released under the
2005, Apress | GNU General Public Licence

[Mark McIntyre]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 17:32:02 -0500, in comp.lang.c , "Chris F.A.
Johnson" <cf********@gmail.com> wrote:

My Oxford Concise gives "housebreaker" = "burglar", hence
housebreaking as breaking into houses, but gives "house-broken" =
"house-trained".

Ah, English as she is spoke. :-)
Mark McIntyre
--

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-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 =----

[Nick Keighley]

Keith Thompson wrote:

"Chuck F. " <cb********@yahoo.com> writes:
<snip>

"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
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>

I suggest updating the boilerplate slightly. It's been brought to my
attention that there's another workaround for Google's interface
problems, one that might be more convenient for some users. Rather
than going through the "show options" link, you can:

Click the "Reply" link at the bottom of the article.
Click the "Preview" button.
Click the "Edit Message" button.

I just use Reply/Post ***before typing anything***, google then states
that the body of my message must contain some text and handily
puts the correctly quoted text of the message being replied to. Just
two key strokes. Does this not work for some people?

Chris F.A. Johnson has updated his web page to reflect this.

Since Google users are going to be viewing this from their web
browsers anyway, it's probably sufficient just to point to Chris's web
page rather than repeating the instructions.

--
Nick Keighley

[Michael Wojcik]

In article <2o************@teksavvy.com>, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cf********@gmail.com> writes:

On 2006-01-14, ozbear wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 06:35:17 +0000 (UTC), Richard Heathfield
<in*****@invalid.invalid> wrote:

(Subject line: "Housebreaking googlers")

Did you mean "Housetraining"? In the UK at least, "housebreaking" has a
completely different meaning.

No, he probably meant what he said. "Housebreak" is a common term for
training a pet not to urinate or defecate is one's house.

My Oxford Concise gives "housebreaker" = "burglar", hence
housebreaking as breaking into houses, but gives "house-broken" =
"house-trained".

The real danger, of course, are housebreakers who aren't themselves
housebroken.

M-W (which is a somewhat suspect source, but this is Usenet) claims
that the use of "housebreak" to mean "make housebroken" is a back-
formation from "housebroken", from 1938. They give 1900 as the
date for first use of "housebroken" in this sense, but no etymology;
I assume it's a simple portmanteau of "house" and "broken" in the
sense of "tamed", as in "break a wild horse to the saddle".
--
Michael Wojcik mi************@microfocus.com

Thus, the black lie, issuing from his base throat, becomes a boomerang to
his hand, and he is hoist by his own petard, and finds himself a marked man.
-- attributed to a "small-town newspaper editor in Wisconsin"

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

On 2006-01-15, Michael Wojcik wrote:

In article <2o************@teksavvy.com>, "Chris F.A. Johnson" <cf********@gmail.com> writes:

On 2006-01-14, ozbear wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 06:35:17 +0000 (UTC), Richard Heathfield
><in*****@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>(Subject line: "Housebreaking googlers")
>>
>>Did you mean "Housetraining"? In the UK at least, "housebreaking" has a
>>completely different meaning.
>
> No, he probably meant what he said. "Housebreak" is a common term for
> training a pet not to urinate or defecate is one's house.
My Oxford Concise gives "housebreaker" = "burglar", hence
housebreaking as breaking into houses, but gives "house-broken" =
"house-trained".

The real danger, of course, are housebreakers who aren't themselves
housebroken.

M-W (which is a somewhat suspect source, but this is Usenet)

Actually, Merriam-Webster is the only "true" Webster's dictionary,
in that it is descended from the original Webster. Many others use
the name, Webster.
claims that the use of "housebreak" to mean "make housebroken" is a
back- formation from "housebroken", from 1938. They give 1900 as the
date for first use of "housebroken" in this sense, but no etymology;
I assume it's a simple portmanteau of "house" and "broken" in the
sense of "tamed", as in "break a wild horse to the saddle".

--
Chris F.A. Johnson, author | <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
Shell Scripting Recipes: | My code in this post, if any,
A Problem-Solution Approach | is released under the
2005, Apress | GNU General Public Licence

[mensanator]

Nick Keighley wrote:

Keith Thompson wrote:

"Chuck F. " <cb********@yahoo.com> writes:
<snip>

"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
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>

I suggest updating the boilerplate slightly. It's been brought to my
attention that there's another workaround for Google's interface
problems, one that might be more convenient for some users. Rather
than going through the "show options" link, you can:

Click the "Reply" link at the bottom of the article.
Click the "Preview" button.
Click the "Edit Message" button.

I just use Reply/Post ***before typing anything***, google then states
that the body of my message must contain some text and handily
puts the correctly quoted text of the message being replied to. Just
two key strokes. Does this not work for some people?

Probably for the same reason nobody had previously discovered
my [Reply][Preview][Edit Message] pathway. It's non-intuitive.
What made you want to post without saying anything? I had
figured that previewing nothing should at least be harmless.

But it's one mouse-click (keystroke?) less, which makes it the
same as the [Show Options][Reply] pathway which makes it
the most efficient since it does not require scrolling back to the
top of the message.

Not that the Google-bashing trolls will care. (And I do not include
Keith Thompson and Chris F. A. Johnson here since they are
genuinely concerned about the issue.)

Chris F.A. Johnson has updated his web page to reflect this.

Since Google users are going to be viewing this from their web
browsers anyway, it's probably sufficient just to point to Chris's web
page rather than repeating the instructions.

--
Nick Keighley

[Emmanuel Delahaye]

Chuck F. a écrit :

for C++ by Scientific Toolworks Inc (www.scitools.com). It

C++ is another language, found down the hall to the right.

Please get some info before riding your big horse... This software works
with K&R C, ISO C and C++...

--
A+

Emmanuel Delahaye

[ozbear]

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 22:16:54 +0000, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 22:10:20 GMT, in comp.lang.c , oz****@bigpond.com
(ozbear) wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 06:35:17 +0000 (UTC), Richard Heathfield
<in*****@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Chuck F. said:

Did you mean "Housetraining"? In the UK at least, "housebreaking" has a
completely different meaning.

No, he probably meant what he said. "Housebreak" is a common term for
training a pet not to urinate or defecate is one's house.

RJH's point was that in UK English, the word for that is "housetrain"
whereas housebreaking is burglary.
Mark McIntyre
--

So what? We don't speak strict U.K. English in here (even if there
were such a thing). The reason why we use English in here at all
(although other languages are not "forbidden" they just limit one's
chances of getting a useful reply) is that the majority of people
in here speak English. And I would hazard a guess that the majority
of English speakers in here are from the U.S. where the term
"housebreak" is understood to be what the OP meant.

Oz
--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

[Richard Heathfield]

ozbear said:

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 22:16:54 +0000, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:

RJH's point was that in UK English, the word for that is "housetrain"
whereas housebreaking is burglary.
Mark McIntyre
--

So what? We don't speak strict U.K. English in here (even if there
were such a thing).

I wuz only arrrsking, yeronner - I didn't realise I'd be starting a Spanish
Inquisition.

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

[Keith Thompson]

"Nick Keighley" <ni******************@hotmail.com> writes:

Keith Thompson wrote:

"Chuck F. " <cb********@yahoo.com> writes:

<snip>

> "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
> More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>

I suggest updating the boilerplate slightly. It's been brought to my
attention that there's another workaround for Google's interface
problems, one that might be more convenient for some users. Rather
than going through the "show options" link, you can:

Click the "Reply" link at the bottom of the article.
Click the "Preview" button.
Click the "Edit Message" button.

I just use Reply/Post ***before typing anything***, google then states
that the body of my message must contain some text and handily
puts the correctly quoted text of the message being replied to. Just
two key strokes. Does this not work for some people?

I just tried it, and it seems to work. No, I didn't know about it
before (but then I don't post through Google).

But there is a bit of a risk. If you type just a single character,
say, by accidentally hitting the spacebar, it will go ahead and post
your nearly empty article. (I think I just did this; my apologies for
the extraneous test message.)

--
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.

[Keith Thompson]

"me********@aol.com" <me********@aol.com> writes:
[...]

Not that the Google-bashing trolls will care. (And I do not include
Keith Thompson and Chris F. A. Johnson here since they are
genuinely concerned about the issue.)

Oh, please don't exclude me. Chuck, Chris, and I are *all* genuinely
concerned about the issue, and we're all "Google-bashers". I don't
believe any of us are trolls, but if any of us are, we all are.

If Google fixes their broken interface (which they should have done
before they released it to the public), I'll stop doing this, and I'm
sure the others will as well.

--
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.

[Chris F.A. Johnson]

On 2006-01-15, ozbear wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 22:16:54 +0000, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 22:10:20 GMT, in comp.lang.c , oz****@bigpond.com
(ozbear) wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 06:35:17 +0000 (UTC), Richard Heathfield
<in*****@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Chuck F. said:

Did you mean "Housetraining"? In the UK at least, "housebreaking" has a
completely different meaning.
No, he probably meant what he said. "Housebreak" is a common term for
training a pet not to urinate or defecate is one's house.

RJH's point was that in UK English, the word for that is "housetrain"
whereas housebreaking is burglary.

So what? We don't speak strict U.K. English in here (even if there
were such a thing). The reason why we use English in here at all
(although other languages are not "forbidden" they just limit one's
chances of getting a useful reply) is that the majority of people
in here speak English. And I would hazard a guess that the majority
of English speakers in here are from the U.S. where the term
"housebreak" is understood to be what the OP meant.

In the U.S. dictinoaries on my shelf (M-W 10th Collegiate, and F&W
Standard Collegiate), housebreaking is defined as burglary,
housebreak and housebroken are what is known in the UK as
house-train[ed].
--
Chris F.A. Johnson, author | <http://cfaj.freeshell.org>
Shell Scripting Recipes: | My code in this post, if any,
A Problem-Solution Approach | is released under the
2005, Apress | GNU General Public Licence

[Keith Thompson]

Emmanuel Delahaye <em***@YOURBRAnoos.fr> writes:

Chuck F. a écrit :

for C++ by Scientific Toolworks Inc (www.scitools.com). It

C++ is another language, found down the hall to the right.

Please get some info before riding your big horse... This software
works with K&R C, ISO C and C++...

Given the name "Understand for C++", it was perfectly reasonable to
assume that it was specific to C++. If it covers both C++ and C, the
previous poster probably should have mentioned it. Not a big deal
either way, but I don't see a "big horse" anywhere.

--
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.

[mensanator]

Keith Thompson wrote:

"me********@aol.com" <me********@aol.com> writes:
[...]

Not that the Google-bashing trolls will care. (And I do not include
Keith Thompson and Chris F. A. Johnson here since they are
genuinely concerned about the issue.)
Oh, please don't exclude me. Chuck, Chris, and I are *all* genuinely
concerned about the issue,

To be "genuinely" concerned, you would promote a better solution
when it is pointed out to you. Not all of you do that.
and we're all "Google-bashers".
Trolling is slightly different from legitimate criticism.
I don't believe any of us are trolls,
Somebody changed the subject to "Housebreaking Googlers".
but if any of us are, we all are.
Suit yorself.

If Google fixes their broken interface (which they should have done
before they released it to the public), I'll stop doing this, and I'm
sure the others will as well.

--
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.

[Jordan Abel]

On 2006-01-15, Chris F.A. Johnson <cf********@gmail.com> wrote:

M-W (which is a somewhat suspect source, but this is Usenet)

Actually, Merriam-Webster is the only "true" Webster's dictionary,
in that it is descended from the original Webster. Many others use
the name, Webster.

That doesn't mean that what it's become is a reputable source.

[Richard Bos]

Jordan Abel <ra*******@gmail.com> wrote:

On 2006-01-15, Chris F.A. Johnson <cf********@gmail.com> wrote:

M-W (which is a somewhat suspect source, but this is Usenet)

Actually, Merriam-Webster is the only "true" Webster's dictionary,
in that it is descended from the original Webster. Many others use
the name, Webster.

That doesn't mean that what it's become is a reputable source.

IMO it means that the original is suspect, because intentionally
revisionist.

Richard

[Mark McIntyre]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:51:40 GMT, in comp.lang.c , oz****@bigpond.com
(ozbear) wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 22:16:54 +0000, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:

RJH's point was that in UK English, the word for that is "housetrain"
whereas housebreaking is burglary.
Mark McIntyre
So what?

So the post containing "housebreaking" was open to bizarre
misunderstanding.
We don't speak strict U.K. English in here
True, but generally we try to avoid weird misunderstandings due to odd
linguistic changes. If someone wrote "dove" I'd be searching for the
white bird for instance.
And I would hazard a guess that the majority
of English speakers in here are from the U.S. where the term
"housebreak" is understood to be what the OP meant.

So drecking what? You left your worst argument to last.
Mark McIntyre
--

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-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 =----

[Mark McIntyre]

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:54:52 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalid> wrote:

I wuz only arrrsking, yeronner - I didn't realise I'd be starting a Spanish
Inquisition.

Nobody expects the comfy chair.
Mark McIntyre
--

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-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 =----

[Dik T. Winter]

In article <00*****************************@news.verizon.ne t> Randy Howard <ra*********@FOOverizonBAR.net> writes:
....

Hmmm, I am either misremembering then, or maybe only when you
search the archive you get this behavior? I distinctly remember
sigs being missing somewhere in the google interface.

I do not know. Sometime ago I tried to track the history of my sig
and I had no problem with that.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, [phone]
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/

[ozbear]

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 22:32:02 +0000, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:51:40 GMT, in comp.lang.c , oz****@bigpond.com
(ozbear) wrote:

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 22:16:54 +0000, Mark McIntyre
<ma**********@spamcop.net> wrote:

RJH's point was that in UK English, the word for that is "housetrain"
whereas housebreaking is burglary.
Mark McIntyre

So what?

So the post containing "housebreaking" was open to bizarre
misunderstanding.

We don't speak strict U.K. English in here

True, but generally we try to avoid weird misunderstandings due to odd
linguistic changes. If someone wrote "dove" I'd be searching for the
white bird for instance.

<snip>
But context is everything. If someone used "dove" I might search for
a white bird, or the past tense of "dive". I seriously doubt that
when someone in here says "plonk" you or RJH think you are being
offered some cheap wine.

Be serious. Interpreting "housebreak" as anything other than
(toilet) training is rediculous.

Feel free to tilt on.

Oz
--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

[Mark McIntyre]

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 22:20:34 GMT, in comp.lang.c , oz****@bigpond.com
(ozbear) wrote:

But context is everything. If someone used "dove" I might search for
a white bird, or the past tense of "dive".
You might, but someone speaking UK English might simply be baffled.
Be serious. Interpreting "housebreak" as anything other than
(toilet) training is rediculous.

Its not. It really really isn't and its sad that you can't see this.

Anyone for some faggots while we discuss further?
Mark McIntyre
--

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-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 =----

[Flash Gordon]

Mark McIntyre wrote:

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 22:20:34 GMT, in comp.lang.c , oz****@bigpond.com
(ozbear) wrote:

But context is everything. If someone used "dove" I might search for
a white bird, or the past tense of "dive".

You might, but someone speaking UK English might simply be baffled.

Be serious. Interpreting "housebreak" as anything other than
(toilet) training is rediculous.

Its not. It really really isn't and its sad that you can't see this.

Anyone for some faggots while we discuss further?

No thanks, whenever I've looked at them I've always thought erk!

However, it's now time to head up the wooden hill to Bedfordshire.
--
Flash Gordon
Living in interesting times.
Although my email address says spam, it is real and I read it.

[Michael Wojcik]

In article <43cd6baa.938337140@news-server>, oz****@bigpond.com (ozbear) writes:

Be serious. Interpreting "housebreak" as anything other than
(toilet) training is rediculous.

And what, after all, could be more convincing than an argument over
a question of usage that depends on an exhortation and an appeal to
emotion, and is misspelled besides?

ozbear 0, regional variations 1.

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