c doubt

[swapna.annamaneni]

hi,
i tried with this simple code
int array[],i;
for(i=-1;i<=sizeof(array);i++)
but the condition is failing always even array size is greater than
zero.
can u help me.............

[Ian Collins]

sw***************@gmail.com wrote:

hi,
i tried with this simple code
int array[],i;
for(i=-1;i<=sizeof(array);i++)

Didn't your compiler warn you about a dimensionless array?

>
but the condition is failing always even array size is greater than
zero.

Think about the result of sizeof, is it a signed or an unsigned type?

can u help me.............

u doesn't post here any more.

--
Ian Collins.

[Craig Franck]

"Ian Collins" wrote

sw***************@gmail.com wrote:

>hi,
i tried with this simple code
int array[],i;
for(i=-1;i<=sizeof(array);i++)

Didn't your compiler warn you about a dimensionless array?

>>
but the condition is failing always even array size is greater than
zero.

Think about the result of sizeof, is it a signed or an unsigned type?

>can u help me.............

u doesn't post here any more.

Ask two questions, and then instruct not to reply. One wonders
why you bothered. . .

--
Craig Franck
cr**********@verizon.net
Cortland, NY

[Ian Collins]

Craig Franck wrote:

"Ian Collins" wrote

>>sw***************@gmail.com wrote:

>>>hi,
i tried with this simple code
int array[],i;
for(i=-1;i<=sizeof(array);i++)

Didn't your compiler warn you about a dimensionless array?

>>>but the condition is failing always even array size is greater than
zero.

Think about the result of sizeof, is it a signed or an unsigned type?

>>>can u help me.............

u doesn't post here any more.

Ask two questions, and then instruct not to reply. One wonders
why you bothered. . .

Pardon? The questions were intended to point the OP in the right
direction. It's often better to hint than to give a direct answer.

I said nothing about not replying. The use of silly abbreviations is
inappropriate on a technical Usenet group.

--
Ian Collins.

[Robert Gamble]

On Apr 5, 11:35 pm, "Craig Franck" <[e-mail]:

"Ian Collins" wrote

[e-mail] wrote:

hi,
i tried with this simple code
int array[],i;
for(i=-1;i<=sizeof(array);i++)

Didn't your compiler warn you about a dimensionless array?

but the condition is failing always even array size is greater than
zero.

Think about the result of sizeof, is it a signed or an unsigned type?

can u help me.............

u doesn't post here any more.

Ask two questions, and then instruct not to reply. One wonders
why you bothered. . .

Reply to a post without taking the effort of actually reading what you
are responding to. One wonders why you bothered...

Robert Gamble

[Craig Franck]

"Ian Collins" wrote

Craig Franck wrote:

>"Ian Collins" wrote

>>>sw***************@gmail.com wrote:

>>>>hi,
i tried with this simple code
int array[],i;
for(i=-1;i<=sizeof(array);i++)

Didn't your compiler warn you about a dimensionless array?

but the condition is failing always even array size is greater than
zero.

Think about the result of sizeof, is it a signed or an unsigned type?

can u help me.............

u doesn't post here any more.

Ask two questions, and then instruct not to reply. One wonders
why you bothered. . .

Pardon? The questions were intended to point the OP in the right
direction. It's often better to hint than to give a direct answer.

That is true, however, subtlety is the last thing one masters
with a language.

I said nothing about not replying. The use of silly abbreviations is
inappropriate on a technical Usenet group.

I'll take your word for it:

"u doesn't post here any more"

tripped me up. Sorry, if I missed the proper intent of continuing
to post.

But it is ironic that abbreviations would be an issue since we are
discussing a language the seems to foster them. The OP might
have thought is was "cool".

Maybe something was lost in translation.

--
Craig Franck
cr**********@verizon.net
Cortland, NY

[Craig Franck]

"Robert Gamble" wrote

"Craig Franck" wrote:

>"Ian Collins" wrote

[e-mail] wrote:

>hi,
i tried with this simple code
int array[],i;
for(i=-1;i<=sizeof(array);i++)

Didn't your compiler warn you about a dimensionless array?

>but the condition is failing always even array size is greater than
zero.

Think about the result of sizeof, is it a signed or an unsigned type?

>can u help me.............

u doesn't post here any more.

Ask two questions, and then instruct not to reply. One wonders
why you bothered. . .

Reply to a post without taking the effort of actually reading what you
are responding to. One wonders why you bothered...

I did read, thoughtfully, which is why I replied precisely as I did.

It is obvious, now, that the poster I replied to did not mean to simply
dismiss the OP as unworthy of posting to this group.

However, again, I got the wrong impression. It seems a question of
whether "hinting" or direct dialogue would be the best approach.

I can only imagine that my confusion was even more pronounced in
the person who made this original post.

--
Craig Franck
cr**********@verizon.net
Cortland, NY

[Ian Collins]

Craig Franck wrote:

"Ian Collins" wrote

>>
Pardon? The questions were intended to point the OP in the right
direction. It's often better to hint than to give a direct answer.

That is true, however, subtlety is the last thing one masters
with a language.

Fair point.

--
Ian Collins.

[Martin Ambuhl]

Craig Franck wrote:

"Ian Collins" wrote

>sw***************@gmail.com wrote:

>>hi,
i tried with this simple code
int array[],i;
for(i=-1;i<=sizeof(array);i++)

Didn't your compiler warn you about a dimensionless array?

>>but the condition is failing always even array size is greater than
zero.

Think about the result of sizeof, is it a signed or an unsigned type?

>>can u help me.............

u doesn't post here any more.

Ask two questions, and then instruct not to reply. One wonders
why you bothered. . .

Where in the world did you dream up "then instruct not to reply"? Could
you please show us which words you claim contain this instruction?
That's two more questions; feel free to reply. And it's true that u
doesn't post here any more. We scared him off.

[Martin Ambuhl]

Craig Franck wrote:

I can only imagine that my confusion was even more pronounced in
the person who made this original post.

I doubt it. I have seen many messages similar to "u doesn't post here
any more." Yours is the first one I have seen in 15 years showing such
a lack of comprehension.

[Malcolm McLean]

"Martin Ambuhl" <ma*****@earthlink.netwrote in message

>
Where in the world did you dream up "then instruct not to reply"? Could
you please show us which words you claim contain this instruction?
That's two more questions; feel free to reply. And it's true that u
doesn't post here any more. We scared him off.

Oh no. We're non-u.
--
Free games and programming goodies.
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm

[Bill Pursell]

On Apr 6, 4:52 am, Ian Collins <[e-mail]:

Pardon? The questions were intended to point the OP in the right
direction. It's often better to hint than to give a direct answer.

I said nothing about not replying. The use of silly abbreviations is
inappropriate on a technical Usenet group.

(This is not intended as a criticism of Ian at all.)

Why is it that 'OP' is an okay abbreviation, (and
IANAL, and ROTFL, ad infinitum), but the lower-cased
acronyms popularized more recently are unacceptable?
Is an acronym silly simply becasue it doesn't appear
in the Jargon file?

[Richard Heathfield]

sw***************@gmail.com said:

hi,
i tried with this simple code
int array[],i;
for(i=-1;i<=sizeof(array);i++)
but the condition is failing always even array size is greater than
zero.

The code you have posted does not compile. You claim that "the condition
is failing always", which suggests that you do have a program which
will compile. I suggest you post that program, and ask for feedback on
it. What you have posted here is so incorrect in so many ways that it
is not clear exactly what you are asking.

can u help me.............

Whoever taught you English has misinformed you, and done you a
disservice. The letter 'u' is not a substitute for "you". It is just a
letter of the alphabet. Using it incorrectly in place of "you" makes
your article less pleasant to read, and some people here who could help
you may not bother to read your article if you are making it needlessly
unpleasant to do that.

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

[Richard Heathfield]

Bill Pursell said:

Why is it that 'OP' is an okay abbreviation, (and
IANAL, and ROTFL, ad infinitum), but the lower-cased
acronyms popularized more recently are unacceptable?

ISO/IEC 9899 doesn't really cover this ground, so a normative reply is
out of the question. Nevertheless, I suspect it's a culture clash -
"u", "r", etc were Not Invented Here, so they are just "stupid
abbreviations" which should be discouraged, whereas OP, IANAL, ROTFL,
IRTA, ITYM, YKNBRUTLW..., HAND, etc (and indeed NIH), are abbreviations
that were either coined or at least first popularised on Usenet, so
they're "OUR stupid abbreviations" and thus worthy of being defended.

Let there be no mistake - it's not *just* a culture clash - it's a
culture clash! It is not trivial. Any sensible English speaker will
reject the substitution of "you are" with "u r" (or even "ur") as an
insupportable barbarism.

Is an acronym silly simply becasue it doesn't appear
in the Jargon file?

ICPC.

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

[Stephen Sprunk]

"Bill Pursell" <bi**********@gmail.comwrote in message
news:11**********************@y80g2000hsf.googlegr oups.com...

On Apr 6, 4:52 am, Ian Collins <[e-mail]:

>Pardon? The questions were intended to point the OP in the right
direction. It's often better to hint than to give a direct answer.

I said nothing about not replying. The use of silly abbreviations is
inappropriate on a technical Usenet group.

(This is not intended as a criticism of Ian at all.)

Why is it that 'OP' is an okay abbreviation, (and
IANAL, and ROTFL, ad infinitum),

Those are acronyms, not abbreviations. Acronyms are generally acceptable,
though if one uses uncommon ones it's best to provide a definition. Some,
such as the examples you give, are so ubiquitous it's assumed everyone knows
them.

but the lower-cased acronyms popularized more recently are
unacceptable?

And here you're referring to abbreviations, not acronyms.

Certain abbreviations are acceptable, but in general (and particularly for
ones that originated in real-time chat rooms) they are not since they are a
sign of laziness. Using "u" instead of "you" clearly falls into that
category, since "you" is hardly a difficult word to learn or type. OTOH,
using something like "i18n" to refer to internationalization is reasonable.

Another point is that educated, professional folks are less likely to
tolerate unusual or disliked abbreviations from an author that is also too
lazy to use proper spelling, grammar, capitalization, and punctuation.
We'll give someone the benefit of the doubt if they mess up one or two of
those, given how many non-native speakers are out there, but messing up on
all five counts? If the author doesn't even make a reasonable attempt to
write their question clearly, why should we be bothered to respond (other
than with ridicule)?

Is an acronym silly simply becasue it doesn't appear
in the Jargon file?

That's not a definitive standard for what _shouldn't_ be used, but it is, at
least, a confirmation that something _can_ be used.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Richard Heathfield]

Stephen Sprunk said:

"Bill Pursell" <bi**********@gmail.comwrote...

>>
Why is it that 'OP' is an okay abbreviation, (and
IANAL, and ROTFL, ad infinitum),

Those are acronyms, not abbreviations.

Except in pathological cases, all acronyms are abbreviations (since
"abbreviate" means "shorten" and acronyms are words formed from the
initial letters of other words, a process that would be difficult to
perform with a shortening.

ROTFL is certainly an abbreviation of "rolls on the floor laughing". But
since when was it an acronym? "ROTFL" is hardly a word. "Rotful" might
conceivably be a word, but "rotfl"? I think not, any more than "dmqvt"
is a word.

OTOH, using something like "i18n" to refer to internationalization is
reasonable.

Why?

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

[U]

sw***************@gmail.com wrote:

hi,
i tried with this simple code
int array[],i;
for(i=-1;i<=sizeof(array);i++)
but the condition is failing always even array size is greater than
zero.
can u help me.............

Thank you for your interest in my C skills. Unfortunately I don't currently
answer questions in comp.lang.c for the reason(s) specified below.

(lack of time)

Please talk to V or W.

Thanks, U.

--
U
Pre-ANSI C User Group, Ur, Mesopotamia (PACUGUM)

[Stephen Sprunk]

"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote in message
news:NM*********************@bt.com...

Stephen Sprunk said:

>"Bill Pursell" <bi**********@gmail.comwrote...

>>Why is it that 'OP' is an okay abbreviation, (and
IANAL, and ROTFL, ad infinitum),

Those are acronyms, not abbreviations.

Except in pathological cases, all acronyms are abbreviations
(since "abbreviate" means "shorten" and acronyms are words
formed from the initial letters of other words, a process that would
be difficult to perform with a shortening.

According to the dictionary, you are correct. However, the common usage of
"abbreviate" is to remove letters, typically the trailing ones and/or
vowels, from a single word.

ROTFL is certainly an abbreviation of "rolls on the floor laughing".
But since when was it an acronym?

An acryonym is defined by m-w.com as "a word (as NATO, radar, or laser)
formed from the initial letter or letters of each of the successive parts or
major parts of a compound term; also : an abbreviation (as FBI) formed from
initial letters".

That means ROTFL is an acronym.

"ROTFL" is hardly a word. "Rotful" might
conceivably be a word, but "rotfl"? I think not, any more than "dmqvt"
is a word.

According to the above definition, it appears that acronyms can be words if
they can be pronounced as a whole instead of spelled out; ROTFL isn't a
word, but ROFL (an equally-common form) may be if one pronounces it
"roffle".

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Richard Heathfield]

Stephen Sprunk said:

"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote in message
news:NM*********************@bt.com...

>Stephen Sprunk said:

>>"Bill Pursell" <bi**********@gmail.comwrote...
Why is it that 'OP' is an okay abbreviation, (and
IANAL, and ROTFL, ad infinitum),

Those are acronyms, not abbreviations.

Except in pathological cases, all acronyms are abbreviations
(since "abbreviate" means "shorten" and acronyms are words
formed from the initial letters of other words, a process that would
be difficult to perform with a shortening.

According to the dictionary, you are correct. However, the common
usage of "abbreviate" is to remove letters, typically the trailing
ones and/or vowels, from a single word.

>ROTFL is certainly an abbreviation of "rolls on the floor laughing".
But since when was it an acronym?

An acryonym is defined by m-w.com as "a word (as NATO, radar, or
laser) formed from the initial letter or letters of each of the
successive parts or major parts of a compound term; also : an
abbreviation (as FBI) formed from initial letters".

"Acronym" also means "a small banana-flavoured fish", according to my
dictionary.

That means ROTFL is an acronym.

No, it only means that Webster thinks it is.

>"ROTFL" is hardly a word. "Rotful" might
conceivably be a word, but "rotfl"? I think not, any more than
"dmqvt" is a word.

According to the above definition, it appears that acronyms can be
words if they can be pronounced as a whole instead of spelled out;
ROTFL isn't a word, but ROFL (an equally-common form) may be if one
pronounces it "roffle".

It is true that "roffle" could conceivably be a word, but "rofl" is not,
any more than "dmqv" is a word".

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

[Craig Franck]

"Martin Ambuhl" wrote

Craig Franck wrote:

>"Ian Collins" wrote

>>sw***************@gmail.com wrote:

>>>hi,
i tried with this simple code
int array[],i;
for(i=-1;i<=sizeof(array);i++)

Didn't your compiler warn you about a dimensionless array?

but the condition is failing always even array size is greater than
zero.
Think about the result of sizeof, is it a signed or an unsigned type?

can u help me.............

u doesn't post here any more.

Ask two questions, and then instruct not to reply. One wonders
why you bothered. . .

Where in the world did you dream up "then instruct not to reply"? Could
you please show us which words you claim contain this instruction?

I grasp now that "u doesn't post here any more" does not
mean what I initially thought it did. But it is a reasonable
interpretation, particularly when the OP may not know
English as a first language.

You really need to respect that an individual with an email
address sw***************@gmail.com who makes a
post titled "c doubt" may misunderstand the subtleties of
non-standard English usage.

My not knowing may make me a complete idiot; but the
issue was how the OP may interpret the response.

That's two more questions; feel free to reply.

I hope my response cleared things up, and that in the
future you will be more sensitive to those who have less
than a perfect grasp of English.

If these emails were for work, you would probably have an
orientation session on how to conduct yourself in a global
work place, where you would learn that what you exhibit
here is called "language chauvinism."

--
Craig Franck
cr**********@verizon.net
Cortland, NY

[Martin Ambuhl]

Craig Franck wrote:

"Martin Ambuhl" wrote

>Craig Franck wrote:

>>"Ian Collins" wrote

sw***************@gmail.com wrote:
hi,
i tried with this simple code
int array[],i;
for(i=-1;i<=sizeof(array);i++)
>
Didn't your compiler warn you about a dimensionless array?

but the condition is failing always even array size is greater than
zero.
Think about the result of sizeof, is it a signed or an unsigned type?

can u help me.............
>
u doesn't post here any more.
Ask two questions, and then instruct not to reply. One wonders
why you bothered. . .

Where in the world did you dream up "then instruct not to reply"? Could
you please show us which words you claim contain this instruction?

I grasp now that "u doesn't post here any more" does not
mean what I initially thought it did. But it is a reasonable
interpretation, particularly when the OP may not know
English as a first language.

It is unreasonable to assume that a poster otherwise not showing a
problem with English grammar would use a third person verb in "u doesn't
post here anymore" if that were meant as a second person imperative.

You really need to respect that an individual with an email
address sw***************@gmail.com who makes a
post titled "c doubt" may misunderstand the subtleties of
non-standard English usage.

There is nothing subtle about it. You have no reason to assume that the
reply, otherwise in perfectly standard English, suddenly shifted into
non-standard English without subject-verb agreement. You have no reason
to assume that the reply, otherwise in perfectly standard English, would
shift into non-standard English with "U" being used for "you."

My not knowing may make me a complete idiot; but the
issue was how the OP may interpret the response.

>That's two more questions; feel free to reply.

I hope my response cleared things up, and that in the
future you will be more sensitive to those who have less
than a perfect grasp of English.

If these emails were for work, you would probably have an
orientation session on how to conduct yourself in a global
work place, where you would learn that what you exhibit
here is called "language chauvinism."

No, you would be attending a course in how to avoid transparent
self-justification using bullshit.

[Craig Franck]

"Martin Ambuhl" wrote

Craig Franck wrote:

>"Martin Ambuhl" wrote

>>Craig Franck wrote:

>>>Ask two questions, and then instruct not to reply. One wonders
why you bothered. . .
Where in the world did you dream up "then instruct not to reply"? Could
you please show us which words you claim contain this instruction?

I grasp now that "u doesn't post here any more" does not
mean what I initially thought it did. But it is a reasonable
interpretation, particularly when the OP may not know
English as a first language.

It is unreasonable to assume that a poster otherwise not showing a problem
with English grammar would use a third person verb in "u doesn't post here
anymore" if that were meant as a second person imperative.

The construct "c doubt" doesn't sound like, perhaps, this
person was struggling with English?

"but the condition is failing always even array size
is greater than zero."

You don't need to work for the FBI crime lab to flag this
as possibly written by an non-native English speaker.

>You really need to respect that an individual with an email
address sw***************@gmail.com who makes a
post titled "c doubt" may misunderstand the subtleties of
non-standard English usage.

There is nothing subtle about it. You have no reason to assume that the
reply, otherwise in perfectly standard English, suddenly shifted into
non-standard English without subject-verb agreement. You have no reason
to assume that the reply, otherwise in perfectly standard English, would
shift into non-standard English with "U" being used for "you."

Okay, try and pronounce this guys name correctly:

swapna annamaneni.

>If these emails were for work, you would probably have an
orientation session on how to conduct yourself in a global
work place, where you would learn that what you exhibit
here is called "language chauvinism."

No, you would be attending a course in how to avoid transparent
self-justificatio

I don't see how you can possibly believe that. I
conceded in the last post that I may be a complete idiot
for misunderstanding the post I originally replied to.

It also turns out this guy's name is swapna annamaneni.

You also appear to be mistaken about him not showing
a problem with English grammar. "failing always " is
a bit too poetic for a technical group.

And your not even the poster I initially replied to!

My actions are totally consistent with an individual who
simply wishes to clear up a misunderstanding.

--
Craig Franck
cr**********@verizon.net
Cortland, NY

[mensanator]

On Apr 6, 5:36�pm, "Craig Franck" <[e-mail]:

"Martin Ambuhl" *wrote

Craig Franck wrote:

"Martin Ambuhl" wrote

>Craig Franck wrote:
Ask two questions, and then instruct not to reply. One wonders
why you bothered. . .
Where in the world did you dream up "then instruct not to reply"? *Could
you please show us which words you claim contain this instruction?

I grasp now that "u doesn't post here any more" does not
mean what I initially thought it did. But it is a reasonable
interpretation, particularly when the OP may not know
English as a first language.

It is unreasonable to assume that a poster otherwise not showing a problem
with English grammar would use a third person verb in "u doesn't post here
anymore" if that were meant as a second person imperative.

The construct "c doubt" doesn't sound like, perhaps, this
person was struggling with English?

* * * * "but the condition is failing always even array size
* * * * * is greater than zero."

You don't need to work for the FBI crime lab to flag this
as possibly written by an non-native English speaker.

*>You really need to respect that an individual with an email

address [e-mail] who makes a
post titled "c doubt" may misunderstand the subtleties *of
non-standard English usage.

There is nothing subtle about it. *You have no reason to assume that the
reply, otherwise in perfectly standard English, suddenly shifted into
non-standard English without subject-verb agreement. *You have no reason
to assume that the reply, otherwise in perfectly standard English, would
shift into non-standard English with "U" being used for "you."

Okay, try and pronounce this guys name correctly:

* * * * * * * * * * * * *swapna annamaneni.

If these emails were for work, you would probably have an
orientation session on how to conduct yourself in a global
work place, where you would learn that what you exhibit
here is called "language chauvinism."

No, you would be attending a course in how to avoid transparent
self-justificatio

I don't see how you can possibly believe that. I
conceded in the last post that I may be a complete idiot
for misunderstanding the post I originally replied to.

It also turns out this guy's name is swapna annamaneni.

You also appear to be mistaken about him not showing
a problem with English grammar. "failing always " is
a bit too poetic for a technical group.

And your not even the poster I initially replied to!

"Your"?

>
My actions are totally consistent with an individual who
simply wishes to clear up a misunderstanding.

--
Craig Franck
[e-mail]
Cortland, NY- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[Craig Franck]

<me********@aol.comwrote

>"Craig Franck" wrote:

And your not even the poster I initially replied to!

>"Your"?

Exclamation marks often cause basic language-errors.

--
Craig Franck
cr**********@verizon.net
Cortland, NY

[Richard Bos]

"Craig Franck" <cr**********@verizon.netwrote:

You really need to respect that an individual with an email
address sw***************@gmail.com who makes a
post titled "c doubt" may misunderstand the subtleties of
non-standard English usage.

And you (and U) need to respect that in order to be considered a decent,
useful, reply-worthy netizen, one is expected to read a good dose of the
existing posts on a newsgroup before posting to it, and to adhere to
normal netiquette, including tolerance for schoolboy abbreviations and
1337$p33k that may or may not exist in that particular newsgroup.
Transgress this local (in-)tolerance if you will, but transgress it at
your peril.

Richard

[Craig Franck]

"Richard Bos" wrote
..

"Craig Franck" wrote:

>You really need to respect that an individual with an email
address sw***************@gmail.com who makes a
post titled "c doubt" may misunderstand the subtleties of
non-standard English usage.

And you (and U) need to respect that in order to be considered a decent,
useful, reply-worthy netizen, one is expected to read a good dose of the
existing posts on a newsgroup before posting to it,

Here we go again. . .

I may have shown bad form with how I have conducted myself
in this thread, but I keep getting suckered back into replying to
correct simple matters of fact: I have posted over 3,000 times
to comp.lang.c. So I have done a good dose of reading.

Perhaps you could point to which current posts I should have
specifically read in order to have responded in what you believe
to be a more reasonable fashion.

I also googled the individual I got into a disagreement with to
see if it was worth the time and effort. It seemed so, which is
why I persisted.

and to adhere to
normal netiquette, including tolerance for schoolboy abbreviations and
1337$p33k that may or may not exist in that particular newsgroup.
Transgress this local (in-)tolerance if you will, but transgress it at
your peril.

Thanks for the tip!

--
Craig Franck
cr**********@verizon.net
Cortland, NY

[user923005]

On Apr 10, 4:19 pm, "Craig Franck" <[e-mail]:
[snip]

I may have shown bad form with how I have conducted myself
in this thread, but I keep getting suckered back into replying to
correct simple matters of fact: I have posted over 3,000 times
to comp.lang.c. So I have done a good dose of reading.

I can vouch for that. I have been reading Craig Franck posts since
the mid 90's. If you got your 3000 post count from google's archive,
it is probably very low compared to the true figure. It seems to be
missing a great volume of information (I can't find a lot of my old
posts that I know ought to be in there). At any rate, Craig Franck is
a news:comp.lang.c poster with a long history of thoughtful, correct,
helpful posts.

IMO-YMMV.

P.S.
Here is something a bit puzzling...
I have also been reading Richard Bos posts for quite a while (not
nearly as long as Craig Franck, but quite a while). I am kind of
surprised that Richard did not recognize your long-standing record in
this arena.
[snip]

[Richard Bos]

"Craig Franck" <cr**********@verizon.netwrote:

"Richard Bos" wrote
.

"Craig Franck" wrote:

You really need to respect that an individual with an email
address sw***************@gmail.com who makes a
post titled "c doubt" may misunderstand the subtleties of
non-standard English usage.

And you (and U) need to respect that in order to be considered a decent,
useful, reply-worthy netizen, one is expected to read a good dose of the
existing posts on a newsgroup before posting to it,

Here we go again. . .

I may have shown bad form with how I have conducted myself
in this thread,

I wasn't talking about you personally, but about "you" generically. You,
the new poster, that is, not you, Craig Franck the old poster. If that
new you had read a decent bit of comp.lang.c with attention before
posting, he (or she) would have known that the regulars here tend to
frown on "u" and similar sms-isms, because it comes up with saddening
frequency.

Richard

[David Thompson]

On Fri, 06 Apr 2007 08:03:11 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:

Bill Pursell said:

Why is it that 'OP' is an okay abbreviation, (and
IANAL, and ROTFL, ad infinitum), but the lower-cased
acronyms popularized more recently are unacceptable?

Aside: not really infinite; although the process of acronym and/or
abbreviation formation seems to be unbounded in general, the set that
I have observed accepted here without at least mild complaint is
rather small and nearly static.

ISO/IEC 9899 doesn't really cover this ground, so a normative reply is
out of the question. Nevertheless, I suspect it's a culture clash -
"u", "r", etc were Not Invented Here, so they are just "stupid
abbreviations" which should be discouraged, whereas OP, IANAL, ROTFL,
IRTA, ITYM, YKNBRUTLW..., HAND, etc (and indeed NIH), are abbreviations
that were either coined or at least first popularised on Usenet, so
they're "OUR stupid abbreviations" and thus worthy of being defended.

I disagree about NIH. I heard that used pretty widely well before
Usenet. (And, sadly, quite often justifiably.) But other than that...

Let there be no mistake - it's not *just* a culture clash - it's a
culture clash! It is not trivial. <snip>

I think you probably have a point. Or, a slightly rosier view of
essentially the same thing, it's 'just' usage: the ones from list A
are familiar to 'us' -- because we (generally) have already spent the
effort to learn them, which is now sunk cost -- while those from list
B aren't, and they incur an additional, current 'expenditure'.

[pete]

Bill Pursell wrote:

Why is it that 'OP' is an okay abbreviation,

Because it's a Usenet convention, and this is Usenet.

--
pete