Draft Secure C

[Jack]

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg...docs/n1135.pdf

Has anyone gone through this?
Is this useful? Will it make it to the next standard?

[Cesar Rabak]

Richard Heathfield escreveu:

Christopher Layne said:

>Richard Heathfield wrote:

>>Gladly. All he has to do is make fewer mistakes. Then he won't get
corrected so often. It's very simple.

The same rationale abusers use as well.

When I make mistakes, I hope and expect that others will correct me. When
others make mistakes, then, it is only courteous for me to correct those
mistakes, if I happen to notice them and if there is time available to me
to do that. You can misdescribe the process as much as you wish, but that
doesn't change the facts.

The issue here, folks seen from other's eyes is that a lot of
'corrections' are about his opinions and not about correcteness or not
on the C language.

Then the endless cookie cutter posts about non topicallity and top posting.

OTOH, lenghty threads about some funny Latin word or the case of some
people felt hurt of the way his attibution on snipped material...

[Richard Heathfield]

Cesar Rabak said:

<snip>

The issue here, folks seen from other's eyes is that a lot of
'corrections' are about his opinions and not about correcteness or not
on the C language.

I cannot answer for others, of course, but when I correct Mr Navia's
articles, it is either because they contain errors of fact about C or
because they are not topical in this newsgroup.

Then the endless cookie cutter posts about non topicallity and top
posting.

Mr Navia, as far as I can recall, does not indulge in top-posting. His
articles, however, frequently stray off-topic. There are other newsgroups
where the matters he wishes to discuss are topical. Let him use those to
discuss such matters, and this newsgroup to discuss C.

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

[Default User]

Christopher Layne wrote:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Gladly. All he has to do is make fewer mistakes. Then he won't get
corrected so often. It's very simple.

I do think Richard likes to argue with Jacob a bit too much. It would
be better if he stuck to correcting the errors and then dropping it.
However, none of what he posts is off-topic, and he can certainly
pursue it as he wishes.

The same rationale abusers use as well.

This is of course pure nonsense. Jacob is vitriolic personality who
distains the actual topics of the newsgroup in favor of his pet
project. As such, I killfiled him long ago. Richard's posts are not
abusive, in any way.

If you believe to the contrary, you should be able to post some
examples. Note that saying, "you're wrong" is not abusive.

Brian

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <52*************@mid.individual.net>,
Default User <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:

>Christopher Layne wrote:

>Richard Heathfield wrote:

Gladly. All he has to do is make fewer mistakes. Then he won't get
corrected so often. It's very simple.

I do think Richard likes to argue with Jacob a bit too much. It would
be better if he stuck to correcting the errors and then dropping it.
However, none of what he posts is off-topic, and he can certainly
pursue it as he wishes.

>The same rationale abusers use as well.

This is of course pure nonsense. Jacob is vitriolic personality who
distains the actual topics of the newsgroup in favor of his pet
project. As such, I killfiled him long ago. Richard's posts are not
abusive, in any way.

If you believe to the contrary, you should be able to post some
examples. Note that saying, "you're wrong" is not abusive.

Brian

Man, do you need to get a life!

Everything you post is pure BS.

[Richard Heathfield]

Default User said:

Christopher Layne wrote:

>Richard Heathfield wrote:

Gladly. All he has to do is make fewer mistakes. Then he won't get
corrected so often. It's very simple.

I do think Richard likes to argue with Jacob a bit too much.

I wouldn't mind an argument, in the proper sense of the word - a real debate
- but that seems impossible. As it happens, I don't enjoy replying to Mr
Navia.

It would
be better if he stuck to correcting the errors and then dropping it.

That's what I try to do. (It doesn't always pan out that way, but I do try.)

<snip>

Note that saying, "you're wrong" is not abusive.

Quite - especially if that claim is backed up (or at least can easily be
backed up) by reference to the C Standard.

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

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <Bd******************************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:

>Default User said:

>Christopher Layne wrote:

>>Richard Heathfield wrote:

Gladly. All he has to do is make fewer mistakes. Then he won't get
corrected so often. It's very simple.

I do think Richard likes to argue with Jacob a bit too much.

I wouldn't mind an argument, in the proper sense of the word - a real debate
- but that seems impossible. As it happens, I don't enjoy replying to Mr
Navia.

The hell you don't!

Or, to put it another way, if you're *not* getting psychic jollies out
of your pointless posts, then you really *are* sick.

[lane straatman]

On Feb 3, 1:03 pm, Richard Heathfield <[e-mail]:

Default User said:

I do think Richard likes to argue with Jacob a bit too much.

I wouldn't mind an argument, in the proper sense of the word - a real debate
- but that seems impossible. As it happens, I don't enjoy replying to Mr
Navia.

The famous last words of 3-cepio. LS

[Keith Thompson]

"lane straatman" <gr**********@netzero.netwrites:

On Feb 3, 1:03 pm, Richard Heathfield <[e-mail]:

Default User said:

I do think Richard likes to argue with Jacob a bit too much.

I wouldn't mind an argument, in the proper sense of the word - a
real debate - but that seems impossible. As it happens, I don't
enjoy replying to Mr Navia.

The famous last words of 3-cepio. LS

You post a lot of obscure comments. I know who C3PO is, I have no
idea what his "last words" might be, and I haven't a clue how this
might be relevant to the current discussion.

For future reference, I don't intend to spend a lot of time trying to
figure out what you mean. If you want to communicate, it's up to you
to do so clearly (and, preferably, relevantly).

--
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]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Default User said:

Christopher Layne wrote:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Gladly. All he has to do is make fewer mistakes. Then he won't

get corrected so often. It's very simple.

I do think Richard likes to argue with Jacob a bit too much.

I wouldn't mind an argument, in the proper sense of the word - a real
debate - but that seems impossible. As it happens, I don't enjoy
replying to Mr Navia.

I'll take your word for that.

It would
be better if he stuck to correcting the errors and then dropping it.

That's what I try to do. (It doesn't always pan out that way, but I
do try.)

Hmmm. When I see a thread with 10-15 Richard Heathfield posts, I can
pretty much guess who he's involved with, even with Navia plonked.

Brian

[Richard Heathfield]

Default User said:

<snip>

Hmmm. When I see a thread with 10-15 Richard Heathfield posts, I can
pretty much guess who he's involved with, even with Navia plonked.

Yes. I'm afraid they're usually along the lines of "<outrageous claim>",
"No, you're wrong because..." "<outraged reaction>" "No, that's not the
case because...", etc. Bunk, debunk, bunk, debunk, all the way down the
line. We all debunk nonsense, but Navia's bunk, like the hydra, sometimes
take a little longer to deal with, because every nonsense you cut down is
instantly replaced with two more nonsenses.

Why me? I think it's because most of the clueful regulars plonked the guy
years ago, so very few of us can see his articles. But those articles will
continue to mislead the unwary if not debunked. If you like, we can try an
experiment - assuming I remember, I'll *not* reply to the next Navia
nonsense, and we'll quietly count how many unrebutted nonsenses we get as a
result.

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

[Default User]

Cesar Rabak wrote:

Then the endless cookie cutter posts about non topicallity and top
posting.

When the cookie-cutter top-posting message comes from me, as many do, I
try to put "- TPA" in the subject line. Those with real newsreaders
can filter that.


Brian

[Cesar Rabak]

Default User escreveu:

Cesar Rabak wrote:

>Then the endless cookie cutter posts about non topicallity and top
posting.

When the cookie-cutter top-posting message comes from me, as many do, I
try to put "- TPA" in the subject line. Those with real newsreaders
can filter that.

And else thread someone was disgusted about another poster not being
courteous:

Do you understand that bashing posters', specially the ones are first
posting here, newsreader choices as your phrase above "Those with real
newsreaders" is at least unfriendly and downright offensive?

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <eq**********@aioe.org>, Cesar Rabak <cs*****@yahoo.com.brwrote:

>Default User escreveu:

>Cesar Rabak wrote:

>>Then the endless cookie cutter posts about non topicallity and top
posting.

When the cookie-cutter top-posting message comes from me, as many do, I
try to put "- TPA" in the subject line. Those with real newsreaders
can filter that.

And else thread someone was disgusted about another poster not being
courteous:

Do you understand that bashing posters', specially the ones are first
posting here, newsreader choices as your phrase above "Those with real
newsreaders" is at least unfriendly and downright offensive?

1) In regards to the obnoxiousness aspect of it, get used to it. It
won't get any better. The "regs" post here to get their psychic jollies
from beating up on the defenseless. (At least I hope they do; as I
posted elsewhere, if they're *not* getting off on it, then they really
*are* complete time wastes)
2) The theory behind Default Loser's position is that the people without
"real newsreaders" are those to whom the TPA posts are directed.
I.e., those with "real newsreaders" are the ones who are entiteld to
opt out of reading them.

Whether you agree or not with DL's position is, of course, up to you to
decide.

[Default User]

Cesar Rabak wrote:

Do you understand that bashing posters', specially the ones are first
posting here, newsreader choices as your phrase above "Those with
real newsreaders" is at least unfriendly and downright offensive?

Ah, I see. You are the type that is determined to be offended.
I won't bother with you anymore.
*plonk*

Brian

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <52*************@mid.individual.net>,
Default Loser <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:

>Cesar Rabak wrote:

>Do you understand that bashing posters', specially the ones are first
posting here, newsreader choices as your phrase above "Those with
real newsreaders" is at least unfriendly and downright offensive?

Ah, I see. You are the type that is determined to be offended.
I won't bother with you anymore.
*plonk*

I'm sure he's crushed.

[Cesar Rabak]

Kenny McCormack escreveu:

In article <52*************@mid.individual.net>,
Default Loser <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:

>Cesar Rabak wrote:

>>Do you understand that bashing posters', specially the ones are first
posting here, newsreader choices as your phrase above "Those with
real newsreaders" is at least unfriendly and downright offensive?

Ah, I see. You are the type that is determined to be offended.
I won't bother with you anymore.
*plonk*

I'm sure he's crushed.

Totally. . . LOL

[CBFalconer]

Cesar Rabak wrote:

Default User escreveu:

>Cesar Rabak wrote:

>>Then the endless cookie cutter posts about non topicallity and
top posting.

When the cookie-cutter top-posting message comes from me, as
many do, I try to put "- TPA" in the subject line. Those with
real newsreaders can filter that.

And else thread someone was disgusted about another poster not
being courteous:

Do you understand that bashing posters', specially the ones are
first posting here, newsreader choices as your phrase above
"Those with real newsreaders" is at least unfriendly and
downright offensive?

Why? It seems factual. I gather your recommendation is to leave
the newbies in ignorance forever, and abandon the newsgroup to
them. This attitude leads to feral cats and children.

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>

"A man who is right every time is not likely to do very much."
-- Francis Crick, co-discover of DNA
"There is nothing more amazing than stupidity in action."
-- Thomas Matthews

[Cesar Rabak]

CBFalconer escreveu:

Cesar Rabak wrote:

>Default User escreveu:

>>Cesar Rabak wrote:

Then the endless cookie cutter posts about non topicallity and
top posting.
When the cookie-cutter top-posting message comes from me, as
many do, I try to put "- TPA" in the subject line. Those with
real newsreaders can filter that.

And else thread someone was disgusted about another poster not
being courteous:

Do you understand that bashing posters', specially the ones are
first posting here, newsreader choices as your phrase above
"Those with real newsreaders" is at least unfriendly and
downright offensive?

Why? It seems factual. I gather your recommendation is to leave
the newbies in ignorance forever, and abandon the newsgroup to
them. This attitude leads to feral cats and children.

A lot of posters are being flamed by being factual as well. So this is
non sequitur.

You can take newbies from ignorance, but I'm afraid the specific issue
about the newsreader option of the posters does not count as one of
'enlightenment' versus 'ignorance'.

Suggesting and giving example are better options.

About your last sentence: who says it did not happen already?!

[Mark McIntyre]

On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 16:02:36 -0200, in comp.lang.c , Cesar Rabak
<cs*****@yahoo.com.brwrote:

>Kenny McCormack escreveu:

>In article <52*************@mid.individual.net>,
Default Loser <de***********@yahoo.comwrote:

>>Cesar Rabak wrote:
Do you understand that bashing posters', specially the ones are first
posting here, newsreader choices as your phrase above "Those with
real newsreaders" is at least unfriendly and downright offensive?
Ah, I see. You are the type that is determined to be offended.
I won't bother with you anymore.
*plonk*

I'm sure he's crushed.

Totally. . . LOL

Just for your reference, Kenny is a resident troll. Best not to chat
to him.

--
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