By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
435,197 Members | 1,173 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 435,197 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Data processing system

P: n/a
Does the current ISO standard for the C Programming language mention the
term ``computer'' anywhere in the document? The ``Committee Draft'' dated
January 1999 refers to only to a ``data processing system''.

To what extent can the ``*abstract* machine'' be just that and nothing more?
Sep 16 '06 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
14 Replies


P: n/a
Bob Nelson said:
Does the current ISO standard for the C Programming language mention the
term ``computer'' anywhere in the document?
Only in the PDF disclaimer.

--
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)
Sep 16 '06 #2

P: n/a
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006, Richard Heathfield wrote:
Bob Nelson said:
>Does the current ISO standard for the C Programming language mention the
term ``computer'' anywhere in the document?

Only in the PDF disclaimer.
I am unable to find this anywhere in my PDF copy of:
BS ISO/IEC 9899:1999 Incorporating Technical Corrigendum No. 1.

Tak-Shing
Sep 16 '06 #3

P: n/a
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006, Bob Nelson wrote:
Does the current ISO standard for the C Programming language mention the
term ``computer'' anywhere in the document?
No.
The ``Committee Draft'' dated
January 1999 refers to only to a ``data processing system''.
Clause 3 of ISO/IEC 9899:1999 states that ``terms not defined
in this International Standard are to be interpreted according to
ISO/IEC 2382-1''.

In this context, a ``data processing system'' refers to
``one or more computers, peripheral equipment, and software that
perform data processing'' (ISO 2382-1:1993, 01.01.20).
To what extent can the ``*abstract* machine'' be just that and nothing more?
No, the behavior of an ``abstract machine'' is not the same
as the behavior of the underlying ``data processing system'',
because ``issues of optimization are irrelevant'' (ISO/IEC
9899:1999, 5.1.2.3 paragraph 1).

Tak-Shing
Sep 16 '06 #4

P: n/a
On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 11:16:29 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Tak-Shing Chan
<t.****@gold.ac.ukwrote:
>On Sat, 16 Sep 2006, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>Bob Nelson said:
>>Does the current ISO standard for the C Programming language mention the
term ``computer'' anywhere in the document?

Only in the PDF disclaimer.

I am unable to find this anywhere in my PDF copy of:
BS ISO/IEC 9899:1999 Incorporating Technical Corrigendum No. 1.
This is probably because you're looking at it from the Contents page
onwards, or else the BS version of the pdf is differently prefixed to
the ISO/IEC version..

-------------
Page 2 of 554:

ISO/IEC 9899:1999(E)
PDF disclaimer
This PDF file may contain embedded typefaces. In accordance with
Adobe's licensing policy, this file may be printed or viewed but shall
not be edited unless the typefaces which are embedded are licensed to
and installed on the computer performing the editing. In downloading
this file, parties accept therein the responsibility of not infringing
Adobe's licensing policy. The ISO Central Secretariat accepts no
liability in this
area.
-------------
etc
--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
Sep 16 '06 #5

P: n/a

"Bob Nelson" <bn*****@nelsonbe.comwrote in message
Does the current ISO standard for the C Programming language mention the
term ``computer'' anywhere in the document? The ``Committee Draft'' dated
January 1999 refers to only to a ``data processing system''.

To what extent can the ``*abstract* machine'' be just that and nothing
more?
I can't afford expensive electronics.
I've outsourced and now I have a room full of chinamen, all madly moving
symbols about on shelves. Our English lettters are as meaningful to them as
Chinese characters are to us, but they've got simple instructions like "move
from shelf 1 to shelf 2". Finally the room is built over a stream, and
little paper baots with letters are floated out of the stream. Another
Chinaman transcribes them and sends the results to me by surface mail.

It's a perfectly good system. They're currently working on a 300 city
travelling slaesman problem.

--
www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
freeware games to download.
Sep 16 '06 #6

P: n/a
Malcolm said:
>
"Bob Nelson" <bn*****@nelsonbe.comwrote in message
>Does the current ISO standard for the C Programming language mention the
term ``computer'' anywhere in the document? The ``Committee Draft'' dated
January 1999 refers to only to a ``data processing system''.

To what extent can the ``*abstract* machine'' be just that and nothing
more?
I can't afford expensive electronics.
I've outsourced and now I have a room full of chinamen, all madly moving
symbols about on shelves. Our English lettters are as meaningful to them
as Chinese characters are to us, but they've got simple instructions like
"move from shelf 1 to shelf 2".
Are you renting the room from John Searle?

Finally the room is built over a stream,
and little paper baots with letters are floated out of the stream. Another
Chinaman transcribes them and sends the results to me by surface mail.

It's a perfectly good system. They're currently working on a 300 city
travelling slaesman problem.
I think some of the baots are coming downstream in the worgn order.

--
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)
Sep 16 '06 #7

P: n/a
Malcolm wrote:
>
"Bob Nelson" <bn*****@nelsonbe.comwrote in message
Does the current ISO standard for the C Programming language
mention the term ``computer'' anywhere in the document? The
``Committee Draft'' dated January 1999 refers to only to a ``data
processing system''.

To what extent can the ``*abstract* machine'' be just that and
nothing more?
I can't afford expensive electronics.
I've outsourced and now I have a room full of chinamen, all madly
moving symbols about on shelves. Our English lettters are as
meaningful to them as Chinese characters are to us, but they've got
simple instructions like "move from shelf 1 to shelf 2". Finally the
room is built over a stream, and little paper baots with letters are
floated out of the stream. Another Chinaman transcribes them and
sends the results to me by surface mail.

It's a perfectly good system. They're currently working on a 300 city
travelling slaesman problem.
Yeah, but they probably eat a lot and produce a lot of heat. You should
have developed a system based on ants.


Brian
Sep 16 '06 #8

P: n/a

In article <Ns******************************@bt.com>, Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrites:
Malcolm said:
Finally the room is built over a stream,
and little paper baots with letters are floated out of the stream. Another
Chinaman transcribes them and sends the results to me by surface mail.

I think some of the baots are coming downstream in the worgn order.
You know what they say: Junk in, junk out.

--
Michael Wojcik mi************@microfocus.com
Sep 18 '06 #9

P: n/a
Malcolm wrote:
Another
Chinaman transcribes them and sends the results to me by surface mail.

The chinaman is not the issue here, Dude. I'm talking about drawing a
line in the sand, Dude. Across this line, you DO NOT... Also, Dude,
chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please.
I believe the preferred term is "Asian-American."
- Walter Sobchak
Sep 18 '06 #10

P: n/a
jmcgill said:
Malcolm wrote:
>Another
Chinaman transcribes them and sends the results to me by surface mail.


The chinaman is not the issue here, Dude. I'm talking about drawing a
line in the sand, Dude. Across this line, you DO NOT... Also, Dude,
chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please.
I believe the preferred term is "Asian-American."
You might prefer to call Chinese people Asian-American, but I prefer to call
them Chinese. Last time I checked, China was not on either of the American
continents.

What do you call the French? Euro-Americans?

--
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)
Sep 18 '06 #11

P: n/a

Richard Heathfield wrote:
jmcgill said:
Malcolm wrote:
Another
Chinaman transcribes them and sends the results to me by surface mail.

The chinaman is not the issue here, Dude. I'm talking about drawing a
line in the sand, Dude. Across this line, you DO NOT... Also, Dude,
chinaman is not the preferred nomenclature. Asian-American, please.
I believe the preferred term is "Asian-American."

You might prefer to call Chinese people Asian-American, but I prefer to call
them Chinese. Last time I checked, China was not on either of the American
continents.

What do you call the French? Euro-Americans?
Call them? Normally we just laugh at them and tell them that they speak
Quebecquois with an odd accent :o)

Sep 18 '06 #12

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield wrote:
You might prefer to call Chinese people Asian-American, but I prefer to call
them Chinese. Last time I checked, China was not on either of the American
continents.
Lighten up, it's a reference to the movie "Big Lebowski."
Sep 18 '06 #13

P: n/a
jmcgill said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>You might prefer to call Chinese people Asian-American, but I prefer to
call them Chinese. Last time I checked, China was not on either of the
American continents.

Lighten up, it's a reference to the movie "Big Lebowski."
I apologise. Clearly, I am subculturally challenged.

--
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)
Sep 18 '06 #14

P: n/a

In article <Qd********************@bt.com>, Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrites:
jmcgill said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
You might prefer to call Chinese people Asian-American, but I prefer to
call them Chinese. Last time I checked, China was not on either of the
American continents.
Lighten up, it's a reference to the movie "Big Lebowski."

I apologise. Clearly, I am subculturally challenged.
I've seen "Big Lebowski", and I missed the reference, though I
assumed that jmcgill was posting tongue-in-cheek. And since your
response was neither incorrect nor especially confrontational, I
don't see much call for you to "lighten up". When someone posts an
obscure film reference to a newsgroup with international readership,
they really ought to be prepared to take some misunderstanding in
stride.

(I've long felt that "lighten up" was a particularly feeble riposte
anyway. It suggests that there will be no argument if one's
interlocutor is willing to forego critical thought and precision.
Well, so what? I'd rather grumble with the thoughtful than laugh
with the lighthearted - there's a better return in the long run.)

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

Some there are, brave, high-souled fellows, who could borrow the world to
play at ball, and never feel the responsibility, whereas others are uneasy
and not themselves with a single shilling that does not belong to them.
-- Arthur Ransome
Sep 20 '06 #15

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.