468,457 Members | 1,676 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 468,457 developers. It's quick & easy.

purge like utility in c

hi .. can we design a program in c which will point out the possible
memory leaks in any given c file and fix them.... i am trying to come
with something like this but do not know where to start...

any help on where to begin would be highly appriciated
kind regards
rahul

Oct 10 '06
118 3821
Keith Thompson said:

<snip>
Garbage collection in C may or may not be a good solution for some
problems in some circumstances. The fact that its major advocate in
this newsgroup chooses to insult anyone who points out any potential
flaws shouldn't prevent anyone from looking into it.
Absolutely. Personally, I see no need for GC, but the world would be a
poorer place if we all did things the same way. It has been rightly said
that Lisp programmers think memory management is far too important to be
left to the programmer, whereas C programmers think memory management is
far too important to be left to the system.
Ignoring jacob navia needn't imply ignoring GC.
He makes a poor advertisement for it. If this is what garbage collection
leaves behind...

--
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)
Oct 11 '06 #51
Richard Tobin said:
In article <Lr******************************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrote:
>>My understanding of valgrind is that you can use it without modifying your
C source code, so the program remains uncorrupted by the tool.

There are garbage collectors for C with that property. You just link
with a different version of malloc() and free(), where typically the
latter is a no-op.
That's good to know. I would be happy to use such a garbage collector, at
least until I'd had a chance to look at the impact on performance. But it
wouldn't mean I'd stop doing my own memory management. It would, at best,
be a backup.
>>will the program still work correctly without leaking memory even when
that program is moved to a platform where the garbage collector is
unavailable?

A conforming C implementation is not required not to leak memory, is it?
ROTFL - sorry, Richard, I obviously didn't phrase that very well.
Seriously, a conservative garbage collector is a reasonable approach
if your program fits certain common constraints and your portability
requirements match the collector in question. Much the same as deciding
to rely on a non-standard library, really.
Precisely so. And that's the problem with Jacob's continued advocacy of GC
here in third-party-library-blind comp.lang.c. It's no different to someone
constantly plugging GTK or ncurses. I have nothing against either of those
libraries, but if someone started telling me - here in comp.lang.c of all
places - that I was clearly a great fool for ignoring them in portable
code, I would use much the same arguments against them that I have used
against GC.

--
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)
Oct 11 '06 #52
tedu wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
>>Besides, all other languages do not provide with the efficiency
of C. Coupled with a good GC, the need for destructors, and
all the associated machinery disappears. You obtain a simpler,
easier to use language, without the problems of other "OO"
stuff.


does your garbage collection close files for me too?
No, but it makes the coffee...

Oct 11 '06 #53
Keith Thompson wrote:
Richard Heathfield <in*****@invalid.invalidwrites:
>>jacob navia said:
<snip>
>>>Maybe. Better do not use [garbage collection].

Excellent advice.

>>>Use malloc/free and do everything manually with all the associated bugs.

I'm happy to use malloc/free, but I see no need to include the bugs.

>>>I was recommending the GC for other people that like caring about their
programs, their algorithms, their deadlines, instead of chasing
malloc/free bugs!!!

The claim "Jacob Navia can't use malloc/free without riddling his programs
with bugs" is a reasonable one, and if that's what you're claiming, I take
your word for it. But the claim "nobody else can either" is ridiculous.


Garbage collection in C may or may not be a good solution for some
problems in some circumstances. The fact that its major advocate in
this newsgroup chooses to insult anyone who points out any potential
flaws shouldn't prevent anyone from looking into it. Ignoring jacob
navia needn't imply ignoring GC.
I did not insult anybody. You are lying.

I said (as you quote) that heathfield should not use the gc if he
can't get it to work.

For Mr Thomson this is an "insult". Be it.
Of course, if you choose not to use GC, that's ok too; I make no
recommendation one way or the other.
Oct 11 '06 #54
jacob navia said:
Keith Thompson wrote:
>>
Garbage collection in C may or may not be a good solution for some
problems in some circumstances. The fact that its major advocate in
this newsgroup chooses to insult anyone who points out any potential
flaws shouldn't prevent anyone from looking into it. Ignoring jacob
navia needn't imply ignoring GC.

I did not insult anybody. You are lying.
I suggest you review your posting history more carefully.
I said (as you quote) that heathfield should not use the gc if he
can't get it to work.
That's like saying I shouldn't go in Canterbury Cathedral if I can't get the
door open. It's true that I can't get the door open, but the reason is not
that I'm no good at opening doors; it's that I'm not in Canterbury!

Similarly, the principal reason I can't get your suggested garbage collector
to work is that it is not installed on this system. It's that simple.

For Mr Thomson this is an "insult".
That's not what he said. Please learn to read. Thanks.

--
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)
Oct 11 '06 #55
jacob navia wrote:
Besides, all other languages do not provide with the efficiency
of C.
C is good for micro-efficiency. It's not so good for the
kind of sweeping redesign that can get you macro-efficiency.
Coupled with a good GC, the need for destructors, and
all the associated machinery disappears.
In a GC language, the things that correspond to "destructors"
do other resourcy things, such a closing inaccessible file
objects: that's what Pop11's GC does, and what generalises to
its `destroy-action` property tables.
You obtain a simpler,
easier to use language, without the problems of other "OO"
stuff.
If I'm going to have the benefits of GC, I'd rather have a language
that knew how to exploit them.

Horses for courses: I have my choice between a racehorse, a carthorse,
a unicorn, or a pegasus, and don't see any compelling reason to
go all Dr Moreau on them.

--
Chris "Essen -8 and counting" Dollin
"People are part of the design. It's dangerous to forget that." /Star Cops/

Oct 11 '06 #56
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrites:
Keith Thompson wrote:
[...]
>Garbage collection in C may or may not be a good solution for some
problems in some circumstances. The fact that its major advocate in
this newsgroup chooses to insult anyone who points out any potential
flaws shouldn't prevent anyone from looking into it. Ignoring jacob
navia needn't imply ignoring GC.

I did not insult anybody. You are lying.
Do not accuse me of lying unless you're very sure of your facts.
I said (as you quote) that heathfield should not use the gc if he
can't get it to work.

For Mr Thomson this is an "insult". Be it.
My name is Thompson, not Thomson. Copy-and-paste it if remembering it
is too much for you.

Here's what you actually wrote:

| Yes, do not use GC_malloc. You see?
| It doesn't work.
|
| Stay with "free" and "malloc" Heathfield. GC_malloc is too much for you.

Meanwhile, you've been telling the rest of us how easy GC is to use.
Of *course* it was an insult.

--
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.
Oct 11 '06 #57
>If one is prepared to give up C standardness for garbage collection,
>there are other languages Out There that come with GC as standard.
Some of them are even designed for it.

C was designed with a GC in mind.
You're a believer in "malevolent design", aren't you? C makes it
about as difficult as possible to implement garbage collection.
The impact is especially bad when the program has an open terabyte
file into which it *might* have stored pointers which will be read
back and used by the same instance of the running program, and
expect the pointed-at data to still be valid and not garbage-collected.

C already has a garbage collector. It just collects zero bytes all
the time.

I challenge any garbage collector that does not have knowledge of
the types of the data in malloc()ed memory (and therefore it doesn't
know what is and what isn't a pointer) to PROVE that it will always
free more than zero bytes even where there is leaked memory. Easier:
given an infinite loop that leaks memory on each iteration, prove
that the garbage collector will free any memory before memory allocation
fails (due to, say, running off a 32-bit pointer size limit).
Oct 12 '06 #58
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
tedu wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
>Besides, all other languages do not provide with the efficiency
of C. Coupled with a good GC, the need for destructors, and
all the associated machinery disappears. You obtain a simpler,
easier to use language, without the problems of other "OO"
stuff.
does your garbage collection close files for me too?

No, but it makes the coffee...
Well, of course it would... silly Froggie program, knows nothing about
beverages. Come back when it makes tea, as well. No, _real_ tea, not
that dishwater you serve in your country.

Richard
Oct 12 '06 #59
Richard Bos wrote:
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
>tedu wrote:
jacob navia wrote:

Besides, all other languages do not provide with the efficiency
of C. Coupled with a good GC, the need for destructors, and
all the associated machinery disappears. You obtain a simpler,
easier to use language, without the problems of other "OO"
stuff.

does your garbage collection close files for me too?

No, but it makes the coffee...

Well, of course it would... silly Froggie program, knows nothing about
beverages. Come back when it makes tea, as well. No, _real_ tea, not
that dishwater you serve in your country.
I don't think generic slurs like this should have a place in this
(or any other, really) newsgroup. (I'm not keen on the person-specific
slurs, either, actually.)

--
Chris "Essen -7 and counting" Dollin
"I'm still here and I'm holding the answers" - Karnataka, /Love and Affection/

Oct 12 '06 #60
Chris Dollin said:

<snip>
I don't think generic slurs like this should have a place in this
(or any other, really) newsgroup.
Generic slurs certainly have a place in, say, rec.music.classical

--
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)
Oct 12 '06 #61
Richard Bos wrote:
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:

>>tedu wrote:
>>>jacob navia wrote:
Besides, all other languages do not provide with the efficiency
of C. Coupled with a good GC, the need for destructors, and
all the associated machinery disappears. You obtain a simpler,
easier to use language, without the problems of other "OO"
stuff.

does your garbage collection close files for me too?

No, but it makes the coffee...


Well, of course it would... silly Froggie program, knows nothing about
beverages. Come back when it makes tea, as well. No, _real_ tea, not
that dishwater you serve in your country.

Richard
Froggie program?

According to a poll realized in England, 20% of the subjects of Her
Majesty the Queen would like to be French. (!!!)

In the South of France, there are so many Britons that you can
speak english in the streets...

BUT... Well, yes. They know how to make the tea better :-)

jacob
Oct 12 '06 #62
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Richard Heathfield wrote:
Chris Dollin said:

<snip>
>I don't think generic slurs like this should have a place in this
(or any other, really) newsgroup.

Generic slurs certainly have a place in, say, rec.music.classical
Wrong. ``Slurs'' does have a different meaning in a musical
context, but not ``generic slurs''.

Tak-Shing
Oct 12 '06 #63
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
Richard Bos wrote:
jacob navia <ja***@jacob.remcomp.frwrote:
>tedu wrote:

jacob navia wrote:

Besides, all other languages do not provide with the efficiency
of C. Coupled with a good GC, the need for destructors, and
all the associated machinery disappears. You obtain a simpler,
easier to use language, without the problems of other "OO"
stuff.

does your garbage collection close files for me too?

No, but it makes the coffee...
Well, of course it would... silly Froggie program, knows nothing about
beverages. Come back when it makes tea, as well. No, _real_ tea, not
that dishwater you serve in your country.

Froggie program?
Yeah, you're a frog-eater, aren't you?
According to a poll realized in England, 20% of the subjects of Her
Majesty the Queen would like to be French. (!!!)
Nowt to do with me, though. I'm not a Limey, I'm a cheese-head.
In the South of France, there are so many Britons that you can
speak english in the streets...
Works in Paris as well. Though you guys do have a funny accent. Mind
you, I've heard a Limey speak French, and that was even more hilarious.
BUT... Well, yes. They know how to make the tea better :-)
Better than most of my compatriots, too.

Richard
Oct 12 '06 #64
Tak-Shing Chan said:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>Chris Dollin said:

<snip>
>>I don't think generic slurs like this should have a place in this
(or any other, really) newsgroup.

Generic slurs certainly have a place in, say, rec.music.classical

Wrong.
Nope.
``Slurs'' does have a different meaning in a musical
context, but not ``generic slurs''.
I was talking about generic slurs, not "generic slurs".

Can we talk about C now please?

--
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)
Oct 12 '06 #65
Hi,

<ot>

jacob navia wrote:
According to a poll realized in England, 20% of the subjects of Her
^^^^^^^
In the South of France, there are so many Britons that you can
^^^^^^^

Do make up your mind which country you are refering too. These two are not
the same. England is a constituent kingdom in the United Kingom, and
Britain is an Island (and the UK is larger than that, eg Nothern Ireland).

So, you could have the South of France filled with Scots, Welsh and so on
while 100% of those in England would never go there.

Noticable mainly due to the fact that folks in Scotland don't have quite the
same attitudes towards the 'Auld Ally' (France) as our neighbours to the
south. See:

http://www.theauldallianceparis.com/hist_auld.asp

</ot>

John McCallum
Edinburgh
Oct 12 '06 #66
John McCallum said:
[...] folks in Scotland don't have quite
the same attitudes towards the 'Auld Ally' (France) as our neighbours to
the south.
The English attitude to France is summed up nicely in Shakespeare's "Henry
V", Act V sc. ii, in which King Henry says: "I love France so well that I
will not part with a village of it".

--
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)
Oct 12 '06 #67
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Richard Heathfield wrote:
Tak-Shing Chan said:
>On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>Chris Dollin said:

<snip>

I don't think generic slurs like this should have a place in this
(or any other, really) newsgroup.

Generic slurs certainly have a place in, say, rec.music.classical

Wrong.

Nope.
> ``Slurs'' does have a different meaning in a musical
context, but not ``generic slurs''.

I was talking about generic slurs, not "generic slurs".
With or without the quotes, Chris Dollin is absolutely right
in saying that generic slurs have no place in any newsgroups.
Suggesting otherwise, like you did, is an implied incitement to
violate netiquette, and worse yet, you were doing this to
rec.music.classical, which you were not a regular of and indeed
I have doubts as to whether you have read their FAQ before
typing ``rec.music.classical'' above. IMHO, your action was
absolutely unjustifiable.
Can we talk about C now please?
I was talking about netiquette, which is always on-topic.

Tak-Shing
Oct 12 '06 #68
Tak-Shing Chan <t.****@gold.ac.ukwrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Richard Heathfield wrote:
Tak-Shing Chan said:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Richard Heathfield wrote:

Chris Dollin said:

I don't think generic slurs like this should have a place in this
(or any other, really) newsgroup.

Generic slurs certainly have a place in, say, rec.music.classical

Wrong.
Nope.
``Slurs'' does have a different meaning in a musical
context, but not ``generic slurs''.
I was talking about generic slurs, not "generic slurs".

With or without the quotes, Chris Dollin is absolutely right
in saying that generic slurs have no place in any newsgroups.
Suggesting otherwise, like you did, is an implied incitement to
violate netiquette, and worse yet, you were doing this to
rec.music.classical, which you were not a regular of and indeed
I have doubts as to whether you have read their FAQ before
typing ``rec.music.classical'' above. IMHO, your action was
absolutely unjustifiable.
Look up the _other_ meaning of the word "slur".

Richard
Oct 12 '06 #69
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Richard Bos wrote:
Tak-Shing Chan <t.****@gold.ac.ukwrote:
>On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>Tak-Shing Chan said:

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Richard Heathfield wrote:

Chris Dollin said:
>
>I don't think generic slurs like this should have a place in this
>(or any other, really) newsgroup.
>
Generic slurs certainly have a place in, say, rec.music.classical

Wrong.

Nope.

``Slurs'' does have a different meaning in a musical
context, but not ``generic slurs''.

I was talking about generic slurs, not "generic slurs".

With or without the quotes, Chris Dollin is absolutely right
in saying that generic slurs have no place in any newsgroups.
Suggesting otherwise, like you did, is an implied incitement to
violate netiquette, and worse yet, you were doing this to
rec.music.classical, which you were not a regular of and indeed
I have doubts as to whether you have read their FAQ before
typing ``rec.music.classical'' above. IMHO, your action was
absolutely unjustifiable.

Look up the _other_ meaning of the word "slur".
I am fully aware of the musical meaning (in fact I wrote to
Richard Heathfield above: ```slurs' does have a different meaning
in a musical context''); however, when ``slur'' is preceded by
``generic'', the musical meaning ceases to apply. Try searching
for +"generic slur" +music on Google. Ask your musical friends
for independent verification(s), preferably, both music theorists
and performers.

Even if you remain unconvinced, it should be clear to you
that Chris Dollin's use of ``generic slur'' is unambiguous (in
the disparaging sense) and since Richard Heathfield is replying
to Chris Dollin's post, his usage of the term should follow that
of Chris' (otherwise it is a fallacy of equivocation).

Tak-Shing
Oct 12 '06 #70
In article <Pi*******************************@scorpio.gold.ac .uk>,
Tak-Shing Chan <t.****@gold.ac.ukwrote:
Even if you remain unconvinced, it should be clear to you
that Chris Dollin's use of ``generic slur'' is unambiguous (in
the disparaging sense) and since Richard Heathfield is replying
to Chris Dollin's post, his usage of the term should follow that
of Chris' (otherwise it is a fallacy of equivocation).
Have you come across the concept named "humour"?

Or can it be possible that you really believed that Richard Heathfield
was suggesting insulting people in rec.music.classical?

Or are you just a troll?

-- Richard
Oct 12 '06 #71
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Richard Tobin wrote:
In article <Pi*******************************@scorpio.gold.ac .uk>,
Tak-Shing Chan <t.****@gold.ac.ukwrote:
> Even if you remain unconvinced, it should be clear to you
that Chris Dollin's use of ``generic slur'' is unambiguous (in
the disparaging sense) and since Richard Heathfield is replying
to Chris Dollin's post, his usage of the term should follow that
of Chris' (otherwise it is a fallacy of equivocation).

Have you come across the concept named "humour"?
[snip]

Humour is OT here. Please try rec.humor.

Tak-Shing
Oct 12 '06 #72
In article <Pi******************************@scorpio.gold.ac. uk>,
Tak-Shing Chan <t.****@gold.ac.ukwrote:
Humour is OT here. Please try rec.humor.
So I was right, you are a troll.

-- Richard
Oct 12 '06 #73
Tak-Shing Chan wrote:

(big quote follows)
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Richard Bos wrote:
>Tak-Shing Chan <t.****@gold.ac.ukwrote:
>>On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Richard Heathfield wrote:

Tak-Shing Chan said:

On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
>Chris Dollin said:
>>
>>I don't think generic slurs like this should have a place in this
>>(or any other, really) newsgroup.
>>
>Generic slurs certainly have a place in, say, rec.music.classical
>
Wrong.

Nope.

``Slurs'' does have a different meaning in a musical
context, but not ``generic slurs''.

I was talking about generic slurs, not "generic slurs".

With or without the quotes, Chris Dollin is absolutely right
in saying that generic slurs have no place in any newsgroups.
Suggesting otherwise, like you did, is an implied incitement to
violate netiquette, and worse yet, you were doing this to
rec.music.classical, which you were not a regular of and indeed
I have doubts as to whether you have read their FAQ before
typing ``rec.music.classical'' above. IMHO, your action was
absolutely unjustifiable.

Look up the _other_ meaning of the word "slur".

I am fully aware of the musical meaning (in fact I wrote to
Richard Heathfield above: ```slurs' does have a different meaning
in a musical context''); however, when ``slur'' is preceded by
``generic'', the musical meaning ceases to apply. Try searching
for +"generic slur" +music on Google. Ask your musical friends
for independent verification(s), preferably, both music theorists
and performers.

Even if you remain unconvinced, it should be clear to you
that Chris Dollin's use of ``generic slur'' is unambiguous (in
the disparaging sense) and since Richard Heathfield is replying
to Chris Dollin's post, his usage of the term should follow that
of Chris' (otherwise it is a fallacy of equivocation).
Or a joke, which it pretty obviously was (with Richard's
followup to your response being a continued stretching of the
offered leg).

If we're going to obsess over the details of wording, may I point
out that I didn't say "generic slurs": I said "generic slurs like
this", referring to the slur in the earlier post. And I didn't
say they "have no place in any newsgroups": I said that /I/
didn't think they /should/ have a place in this (or any other,
really) newsgroup. Your:
>>With or without the quotes, Chris Dollin is absolutely right
in saying that generic slurs have no place in any newsgroups.
over-states my position.

--
Chris "Essen -7 and counting" Dollin
Scoring, bah. If I want scoring I'll go play /Age of Steam/.

Oct 12 '06 #74
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Chris Dollin wrote:
[big quote snipped]

Or a joke, which it pretty obviously was (with Richard's
followup to your response being a continued stretching of the
offered leg).
If it was a joke, then Richard should have inserted a
smiley or two in his followup.

Tak-Shing
Oct 12 '06 #75
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Richard Tobin wrote:
In article <Pi******************************@scorpio.gold.ac. uk>,
Tak-Shing Chan <t.****@gold.ac.ukwrote:
> Humour is OT here. Please try rec.humor.

So I was right, you are a troll.
If netiquette reminders are seen as trolls then I think I
am in the wrong group.

Tak-Shing
Oct 12 '06 #76
Tak-Shing Chan wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Chris Dollin wrote:
>[big quote snipped]

Or a joke, which it pretty obviously was (with Richard's
followup to your response being a continued stretching of the
offered leg).

If it was a joke, then Richard should have inserted a
smiley or two in his followup.
I /strongly/ disagree, and believe that there is no such
obligation. (I am of course biased, since I too generally
avoid smilies in postings & mailings.)

--
Chris "Essen -7 and counting" Dollin
"We did not have time to find out everything we wanted to know."
- James Blish, /A Clash of Cymbals/

Oct 12 '06 #77
Chris Dollin posted:
> If it was a joke, then Richard should have inserted a
smiley or two in his followup.

I /strongly/ disagree, and believe that there is no such
obligation. (I am of course biased, since I too generally
avoid smilies in postings & mailings.)

Then don't complain when you're misinterpreted. A particular sentence can
have a dozen meanings depending on intonation, tone of voice, etc. -- smileys
and short phrases such as "haha" provide clarification for the written word.

When the human mind encounters a sentence which could constitue an ambiguous
parse, it tends not to notice -- it simply takes the first meaning which
comes to mind. This is problematic for the written word, which lacks
intonation, tone of voice, etc., which would otherwise indicate the intended
meaning.

When writing a sentence, if you believe that it is necessary to convey tone
of voice, etc., then it's pertinent to use smileys and the like.

--

Frederick Gotham
Oct 12 '06 #78
Chris Dollin said:
Tak-Shing Chan wrote:
<snip>
>>
If it was a joke, then Richard should have inserted a
smiley or two in his followup.

I /strongly/ disagree, and believe that there is no such
obligation.
You're right, Chris. There isn't.
(I am of course biased, since I too generally
avoid smilies in postings & mailings.)
Yup. Those who understand, understand. If some people can't grok it without
a smiley, that's their problem, not mine (or yours).

--
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)
Oct 12 '06 #79
Richard Heathfield posted:
If some people can't grok it without a smiley, that's their problem, not
mine (or yours).

It's the transmitter's responsibility to transmit intelligibly.
It's the receiver's responsibility to interpret intelligibly.

By not clarifying the tone in which a sentence should be spoken, you're
neglecting your resonsibility as transmitter, and forfeiting your right to
complain when people misinterpret you.

--

Frederick Gotham
Oct 12 '06 #80
Frederick Gotham said:
It's the transmitter's responsibility to transmit intelligibly.
I did so.
It's the receiver's responsibility to interpret intelligibly.
Some did, and some didn't.
By not clarifying the tone in which a sentence should be spoken, you're
neglecting your resonsibility as transmitter, and forfeiting your right to
complain when people misinterpret you.
Nonsense. And you are in no position to give lessons on proper Usenet usage.

--
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)
Oct 12 '06 #81
Richard Heathfield posted:
>By not clarifying the tone in which a sentence should be spoken, you're
neglecting your resonsibility as transmitter, and forfeiting your right
to complain when people misinterpret you.

Nonsense. And you are in no position to give lessons on proper Usenet
usage.

I'm the _inventor_ of Usenet, of course I'm in such a position!

I haven't got too much pretentious pride to clarify the manner in which I
communicate.

--

Frederick Gotham
Oct 12 '06 #82
Frederick Gotham wrote:
Chris Dollin posted:
>> If it was a joke, then Richard should have inserted a
smiley or two in his followup.

I /strongly/ disagree, and believe that there is no such
obligation. (I am of course biased, since I too generally
avoid smilies in postings & mailings.)

Then don't complain when you're misinterpreted.
Don't be silly: such an overly-general rule is unhelpful.
A particular sentence can
have a dozen meanings depending on intonation, tone of voice, etc.
Wow, really? I didn't know that.
-- smileys and short phrases such as "haha" provide clarification for the written word.
I've not said otherwise. Did you think I had?
When the human mind encounters a sentence which could constitue an ambiguous
parse, it tends not to notice -- it simply takes the first meaning which
comes to mind. This is problematic for the written word, which lacks
intonation, tone of voice, etc., which would otherwise indicate the intended
meaning.
Ah. That explains the smilies found in /Pride and Prejudice/, /Sourcery/,
/Expecting Someone Taller/, and /Much Ado About Nothing/. I had thought
that it was dreadful copy-editing.
When writing a sentence, if you believe that it is necessary to convey tone
of voice, etc., then it's pertinent to use smileys and the like.
As I do - for some value of "the like". I just very rarely use smilies.
I don't mind if /you/ do, or if Tak-Shing Chan does, or well pretty
much anyone (it may affect my opinion of their writing, of course),
but what I said above was "believe that there is no such obligation"
to use them.

--
Chris "Essen -7 and counting" Dollin
"A facility for quotation covers the absence of original thought." /Gaudy Night/

Oct 12 '06 #83
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Chris Dollin said:
>Tak-Shing Chan wrote:
<snip>
>>>
If it was a joke, then Richard should have inserted a
smiley or two in his followup.

I /strongly/ disagree, and believe that there is no such
obligation.

You're right, Chris. There isn't.
>(I am of course biased, since I too generally
avoid smilies in postings & mailings.)

Yup. Those who understand, understand. If some people can't grok it without
a smiley, that's their problem, not mine (or yours).
To be fair, sometimes it /is/ our problem: we can't
realistically expect all the audience to be able to
pick up on the clues, especially if they haven't
followed our style. There's a line to walk, and sometimes
some course-correction is needed.

Why is why my comp.lang.c style has less implicit humour
then my evil twin's rec.arts.sf.composition style. I
think.

--
Chris "Essen -7 and counting" Dollin
The "good old days" used to be much better.

Oct 12 '06 #84
Frederick Gotham wrote:
Richard Heathfield posted:
>>By not clarifying the tone in which a sentence should be spoken, you're
neglecting your resonsibility as transmitter, and forfeiting your right
to complain when people misinterpret you.

Nonsense. And you are in no position to give lessons on proper Usenet
usage.

I'm the _inventor_ of Usenet, of course I'm in such a position!
Hell's teeth, what kind of egomaniac are you to claim that you invented
Usenet? Three minutes with Google is enough to refute it. Bah.

--
Chris "oh happy days" Dollin
"The path to the web becomes deeper and wider" - October Project

Oct 12 '06 #85
In article <z5*******************@news.indigo.ie>,
Frederick Gotham <fg*******@SPAM.comwrote:
>> If it was a joke, then Richard should have inserted a
smiley or two in his followup.
>I /strongly/ disagree, and believe that there is no such
obligation. (I am of course biased, since I too generally
avoid smilies in postings & mailings.)
>Then don't complain when you're misinterpreted.
So just what misinterpretation did Tak-Shing Chan make? As soon as I
pointed out that it was humour, he said that was off-topic. It seems
to me that he didn't in fact misinterpret it at all, but just
pretended to.
>A particular sentence can
have a dozen meanings depending on intonation, tone of voice, etc. -- smileys
and short phrases such as "haha" provide clarification for the written word.
Can you give *any* realistic alternative meaning of the sentence in
question?

-- Richard
Oct 12 '06 #86
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Chris Dollin wrote:
Frederick Gotham wrote:
>Richard Heathfield posted:
>>>By not clarifying the tone in which a sentence should be spoken, you're
neglecting your resonsibility as transmitter, and forfeiting your right
to complain when people misinterpret you.

Nonsense. And you are in no position to give lessons on proper Usenet
usage.

I'm the _inventor_ of Usenet, of course I'm in such a position!

Hell's teeth, what kind of egomaniac are you to claim that you invented
Usenet? Three minutes with Google is enough to refute it. Bah.
I think Frederick is trying to demonstrate his point that
without smiley or the like it is very easy to misinterpret the
``I'm the __inventor__ of Usenet'' joke.

Tak-Shing
Oct 12 '06 #87
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Richard Tobin wrote:
In article <z5*******************@news.indigo.ie>,
Frederick Gotham <fg*******@SPAM.comwrote:
>>> If it was a joke, then Richard should have inserted a
smiley or two in his followup.
>>I /strongly/ disagree, and believe that there is no such
obligation. (I am of course biased, since I too generally
avoid smilies in postings & mailings.)
>Then don't complain when you're misinterpreted.

So just what misinterpretation did Tak-Shing Chan make? As soon as I
pointed out that it was humour, he said that was off-topic. It seems
to me that he didn't in fact misinterpret it at all, but just
pretended to.
You did not ``point out'' that it was humour. Rather, you
asked three loaded questions, one of which is ``have you come
across the concept named "humour"'', insinuating that I am
humour-impaired.

Tak-Shing
Oct 12 '06 #88
Tak-Shing Chan wrote:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Chris Dollin wrote:
>Frederick Gotham wrote:
>>Richard Heathfield posted:

By not clarifying the tone in which a sentence should be spoken, you're
neglecting your resonsibility as transmitter, and forfeiting your right
to complain when people misinterpret you.

Nonsense. And you are in no position to give lessons on proper Usenet
usage.

I'm the _inventor_ of Usenet, of course I'm in such a position!

Hell's teeth, what kind of egomaniac are you to claim that you invented
Usenet? Three minutes with Google is enough to refute it. Bah.

I think Frederick is trying to demonstrate his point that
without smiley or the like it is very easy to misinterpret the
``I'm the __inventor__ of Usenet'' joke.
In that case he failed: it was obvious that he was joking, which is
why I responded as I did - using the same signalling technique to
show that it was humour.

--
Chris "... like pulling teeth. tusks, maybe." Dollin
"Who are you? What do you want?" /Babylon 5/

Oct 12 '06 #89
Tak-Shing Chan posted:
>Hell's teeth, what kind of egomaniac are you to claim that you invented
Usenet? Three minutes with Google is enough to refute it. Bah.

I think Frederick is trying to demonstrate his point that
without smiley or the like it is very easy to misinterpret the
``I'm the __inventor__ of Usenet'' joke.

The other reason was to invite the question: What difference does it make if
I _didn't_ invent Usenet -- that is, who should nominate those who _are_ in a
position to give lessons on proper Usenet usage?

This newsgroup has seen its fair share of bullshit from newcomers, regulars
and trolls alike.

--

Frederick Gotham
Oct 12 '06 #90
In article <Pi*******************************@scorpio.gold.ac .uk>,
Tak-Shing Chan <t.****@gold.ac.ukwrote:
You did not ``point out'' that it was humour. Rather, you
asked three loaded questions, one of which is ``have you come
across the concept named "humour"'', insinuating that I am
humour-impaired.
Either you didn't know it was humour, in which case you *are*
humour-impaired, or you did know it was humour, in which case your
comments were stupid.

-- Richard

Oct 12 '06 #91
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Chris Dollin wrote:
Tak-Shing Chan wrote:
>On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Chris Dollin wrote:
>>Frederick Gotham wrote:

I'm the _inventor_ of Usenet, of course I'm in such a position!

Hell's teeth, what kind of egomaniac are you to claim that you invented
Usenet? Three minutes with Google is enough to refute it. Bah.

I think Frederick is trying to demonstrate his point that
without smiley or the like it is very easy to misinterpret the
``I'm the __inventor__ of Usenet'' joke.

In that case he failed: it was obvious that he was joking, which is
why I responded as I did - using the same signalling technique to
show that it was humour.
I failed to catch your signal---it was somehow lost in
translation. But I did catch Frederick's, because he used
underscores to mark the false bits.

Tak-Shing
Oct 12 '06 #92
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Richard Tobin wrote:
In article <Pi*******************************@scorpio.gold.ac .uk>,
Tak-Shing Chan <t.****@gold.ac.ukwrote:
> You did not ``point out'' that it was humour. Rather, you
asked three loaded questions, one of which is ``have you come
across the concept named "humour"'', insinuating that I am
humour-impaired.

Either you didn't know it was humour, in which case you *are*
humour-impaired, or you did know it was humour, in which case your
comments were stupid.
You have to take into account that English is not my first
language. If I tell you a Chinese joke, and you failed to get
it, would you be insulted if I call you a humour-impaired person?

Tak-Shing
Oct 12 '06 #93
In article <Pi*******************************@scorpio.gold.ac .uk>,
Tak-Shing Chan <t.****@gold.ac.ukwrote:
You have to take into account that English is not my first
language. If I tell you a Chinese joke, and you failed to get
it, would you be insulted if I call you a humour-impaired person?
If I spoke excellent Chinese, and I said I was "fully aware" of the
meaning of the relevant word, then you would probably be right to call
me humour-impaired.

But if this is just a misunderstanding, I apologise for criticising
you.

-- Richard
Oct 12 '06 #94
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Richard Tobin wrote:
In article <Pi*******************************@scorpio.gold.ac .uk>,
Tak-Shing Chan <t.****@gold.ac.ukwrote:
> You have to take into account that English is not my first
language. If I tell you a Chinese joke, and you failed to get
it, would you be insulted if I call you a humour-impaired person?

If I spoke excellent Chinese, and I said I was "fully aware" of the
meaning of the relevant word, then you would probably be right to call
me humour-impaired.
It is entirely possible that one could speak ``excellent
Chinese'' and become ``fully aware of the meaning of the relevant
word'' but still managed to miss the joke. It does not
necessarily imply humour-impairment---it could mean that his/her
Chinese enculturation is incomplete, which makes it difficult to
grasp the subtle nuances of some signifiers (of jokes).

In fact, even within the domain of Chinese jokes, some jokes
works in mainland China but not in Taiwan (and vice versa),
regardless of the fact that they speak the *same* language
natively. I think culture is more than just language.
But if this is just a misunderstanding, I apologise for criticising
you.
Apologies accepted. I should also apologise for taking this
subthread far too seriously, to the point where it becomes
offensive to some of you.

Tak-Shing
Oct 12 '06 #95
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Frederick Gotham wrote:
Tak-Shing Chan posted:
>>Hell's teeth, what kind of egomaniac are you to claim that you invented
Usenet? Three minutes with Google is enough to refute it. Bah.

I think Frederick is trying to demonstrate his point that
without smiley or the like it is very easy to misinterpret the
``I'm the __inventor__ of Usenet'' joke.


The other reason was to invite the question: What difference does it make if
I _didn't_ invent Usenet -- that is, who should nominate those who _are_ in a
position to give lessons on proper Usenet usage?
I guess you just need to stick around. I envisage that 10-20
years from now you could well be the respected regular
prescribing netiquette lessons to newcomers.
This newsgroup has seen its fair share of bullshit from newcomers, regulars
and trolls alike.
Is this a joke? :-) <-- a smiley here

Tak-Shing
Oct 12 '06 #96
Tak-Shing Chan <t.****@gold.ac.ukwrites:
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Richard Tobin wrote:
>In article <Pi******************************@scorpio.gold.ac. uk>,
Tak-Shing Chan <t.****@gold.ac.ukwrote:
>> Humour is OT here. Please try rec.humor.

So I was right, you are a troll.

If netiquette reminders are seen as trolls then I think I
am in the wrong group.
It was a joke, ok? It was no more or less topical than the portion of
the thread leading up to it.

--
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.
Oct 12 '06 #97
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 12:15:21 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Tak-Shing Chan
<t.****@gold.ac.ukwrote:
>On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
I was talking about generic slurs, not "generic slurs".

With or without the quotes, Chris Dollin is absolutely right
in saying that generic slurs have no place in any newsgroups.
You really do have no sense of humour do you? Richard was making a
joke.
>Suggesting otherwise, like you did, is an implied incitement to
violate netiquette,
Bollocks. Thats the sort of nonsensical idea that makes people afraid
to send birthday cards in case they're accused of ageism.
I was talking about netiquette, which is always on-topic.
No you weren't, you were being pompous.
--
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
Oct 12 '06 #98
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 14:52:53 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Tak-Shing Chan
<t.****@gold.ac.ukwrote:
>On Thu, 12 Oct 2006, Richard Tobin wrote:
>In article <Pi******************************@scorpio.gold.ac. uk>,
Tak-Shing Chan <t.****@gold.ac.ukwrote:
>> Humour is OT here. Please try rec.humor.

So I was right, you are a troll.

If netiquette reminders are seen as trolls then I think I
am in the wrong group.
It was a joke. If you choose to interpret it otherwise then you're
either a fool or a knave. I have a small bet placed on which.
--
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
Oct 12 '06 #99
On Thu, 12 Oct 2006 17:41:30 +0100, in comp.lang.c , Tak-Shing Chan
<t.****@gold.ac.ukwrote:
You have to take into account that English is not my first
language.
This defebce would only work if you had a poor grasp of english, or
were posting from China. You don't and you aren't - not unless SE
London has mysteriously moved continents.
If I tell you a Chinese joke, and you failed to get
it, would you be insulted if I call you a humour-impaired person?
Nope, but then I speak zero words of Chinese, whereas you have better
a grasp of english than my daughter, and she would have got that joke.

You're on a hiding to nothing and should cut your losses. And don't
try to pretend you don't know what that means :-)
--
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
Oct 12 '06 #100

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

1 post views Thread by Dan Caron | last post: by
1 post views Thread by Heather | last post: by
5 posts views Thread by Diffident | last post: by
1 post views Thread by huyuhui | last post: by
27 posts views Thread by Neil | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.