By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
435,099 Members | 2,156 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 435,099 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Is it legal to include source file?

P: n/a
Is it legal to do something like this:
#include "x.c" in other source file?
And is it good idea?
Thank you in advance for your answers,
Igor.

Jun 3 '07 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
34 Replies


P: n/a
mr******@gmail.com said:
Is it legal to do something like this:
#include "x.c" in other source file?
Yes.
And is it good idea?
No.
Thank you in advance for your answers,
Igor.
That'th all right, Igor. The uthual way to incorporate multiple
thourtheth into one program ith to compile them theparately, and then
link them together. For ecthample, if you are uthing the GNU compiler
(which begth to be lithped, but I lack thuffithient thpittle), you
might do thith:

gcc -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic -c -o x.o x.c
gcc -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic -c -o y.o y.c
gcc -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic -c -o z.o z.c
gcc -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic -o foo x.o y.o z.o

Might I altho thuggetht that you invethtigate your implementathion'th
third-party library fathilitieth?

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.
Jun 3 '07 #2

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield wrote:
mr******@gmail.com said:
>>Is it legal to do something like this:
#include "x.c" in other source file?

Yes.
>>And is it good idea?

No.

That'th all right, Igor. The uthual way to incorporate multiple
thourtheth into one program ith to compile them theparately, and then
link them together.
Been to the dentist? ;-)

There was a project several years ago in which I included a code file.
I was writing serial I/O drivers for multiple ports, but using a single
function and pointers/indexes to the data area associated with the port
significantly increased the interrupt processing time. I wrote one
procedure as a template, then had separate wrapper functions for each
port which included the code file after setting a defined constant for
the port value. For each driver the port was constant, so no run-time
indexing or dereferencing was needed. The I/O ports were also directly
addressed.

Bottom line was that the code was defined in one place, and was
instantiated in multiple places to optimize speed at the expense of code
space. Come to think of it, that's similar to what happens with
function-like macro usage, and inline functions, just a different way to
invoke it.

It's a technique, though, which I use only in special circumstances.

--
Thad
Jun 3 '07 #3

P: n/a
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:02:18 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
mr******@gmail.com said:
>Is it legal to do something like this:
#include "x.c" in other source file?

Yes.
>And is it good idea?

No.
>Thank you in advance for your answers,
Igor.

That'th all right, Igor. The uthual way to incorporate multiple
What in the original post prompted you to be this snide? Any value in
your response will be lost on all the participants who struggle
through this group in a second language. Are you having a running
battle with this poster in a different group?
Remove del for email
Jun 3 '07 #4

P: n/a
Thad Smith wrote:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
> mr******@gmail.com said:
>>Is it legal to do something like this:
#include "x.c" in other source file?

Yes.
>>And is it good idea?

No.
>
Bottom line was that the code was defined in one place, and was
instantiated in multiple places to optimize speed at the expense of code
space. Come to think of it, that's similar to what happens with
function-like macro usage, and inline functions, just a different way to
invoke it.

It's a technique, though, which I use only in special circumstances.
I've seen it done where the same code is instantiated with multiple data
types. As it was done that way by people more expert than the average
of those whose code I inherit, I work with it, rather than pass judgment.
Jun 3 '07 #5

P: n/a
Barry Schwarz said:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:02:18 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>mr******@gmail.com said:
<snip>
>>
>>Thank you in advance for your answers,
Igor.

That'th all right, Igor. The uthual way to incorporate multiple

What in the original post prompted you to be this snide?
What maketh you think I'm being thnide? Have you never read any
Dithcworld bookth?

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.
Jun 3 '07 #6

P: n/a
Thad Smith <Th*******@acm.orgwrites:
There was a project several years ago in which I included a code
file. I was writing serial I/O drivers for multiple ports, but using a
single function and pointers/indexes to the data area associated with
the port significantly increased the interrupt processing time. I
wrote one procedure as a template, then had separate wrapper functions
for each port which included the code file after setting a defined
constant for the port value. For each driver the port was constant,
so no run-time indexing or dereferencing was needed. The I/O ports
were also directly addressed.
This technique sometimes makes sense, but I'd suggest that giving
an included code file a .c extension is misleading. When I do
something like this, I use a .inc or .def or other extension that
is less likely to surprise programmers reading the code later.
--
"Welcome to the wonderful world of undefined behavior, where the demons
are nasal and the DeathStation users are nervous." --Daniel Fox
Jun 3 '07 #7

P: n/a
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 21:50:10 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>Barry Schwarz said:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:02:18 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>>mr******@gmail.com said:
<snip>
>>>
Thank you in advance for your answers,
Igor.

That'th all right, Igor. The uthual way to incorporate multiple

What in the original post prompted you to be this snide?

What maketh you think I'm being thnide? Have you never read any
Dithcworld bookth?
I guess the problem is that your post could be construed as an
insulting joke.

Imagine if we insisted on comparing you to Richard the Third, hump and
all, or invariably responded in Bronte-esque language and complained
about how you'd treated Cathy?

Igor is after all a real name as well as a running joke in Discworld.

(and yes, I know you won't read this, you killfiled me because you
thought I kept insulting you. Hmm, curiouser and curiouser..)
--
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
Jun 3 '07 #8

P: n/a
In article <a3********************************@4ax.com>,
Barry Schwarz <sc******@doezl.netwrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:02:18 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
mr******@gmail.com said:
Is it legal to do something like this:
#include "x.c" in other source file?
Yes.
And is it good idea?
No.
Thank you in advance for your answers,
Igor.
That'th all right, Igor. The uthual way to incorporate multiple

What in the original post prompted you to be this snide?
So I'm not alone?

(I thought the same thing.)

--
Don Bruder - da****@sonic.net - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakiddfor more info
Jun 3 '07 #9

P: n/a
Ben Pfaff wrote:
Thad Smith <Th*******@acm.orgwrites:
>>There was a project several years ago in which I included a code
file. I was writing serial I/O drivers for multiple ports, but using a
single function and pointers/indexes to the data area associated with
the port significantly increased the interrupt processing time. I
wrote one procedure as a template, then had separate wrapper functions
for each port which included the code file after setting a defined
constant for the port value. For each driver the port was constant,
so no run-time indexing or dereferencing was needed. The I/O ports
were also directly addressed.

This technique sometimes makes sense, but I'd suggest that giving
an included code file a .c extension is misleading. When I do
something like this, I use a .inc or .def or other extension that
is less likely to surprise programmers reading the code later.
God point, Ben. I think I used an extension of .ci.

--
Thad
Jun 3 '07 #10

P: n/a
Don Bruder said:
In article <a3********************************@4ax.com>,
Barry Schwarz <sc******@doezl.netwrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:02:18 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
mr******@gmail.com said:
<snip>
>
Thank you in advance for your answers,
Igor.

That'th all right, Igor. The uthual way to incorporate multiple

What in the original post prompted you to be this snide?

So I'm not alone?

(I thought the same thing.)
Then I apologise unreservedly to the OP. Silly joke gone wrong. Sorry.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.
Jun 3 '07 #11

P: n/a
In article <11**********************@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups .com>,
<mr******@gmail.comwrote:
>Is it legal to do something like this:
#include "x.c" in other source file?
Whether it will work or not is implementation defined. If my memory
serves me correctly this evening, the preprocessor is only -required-
to provide a token-to-filename mapping mechanism for the .h extension
and for one directory.

The C preprocessor is -allowed- to require the user to write the
filename token in a manner quite different than the host operating system
uses to name files.

For example, there are operating systems that do not support lowercase
letters, and do not support dots in filenames; the operating system
might also happen to require a "drive letter" for each filename access
(with no equivilent of a "current working directory".) The preprocessor
could define (documenting it of course) that <foo.h(for any foo)
shall map to filename FOO (uppercaseing), file extension INC, drive Z,
and could define that "foo.h" shall first try filename FOO file extension
INC drive A, followed by FOO INC Z -- and the preprocessor could leave
the transformation of all other filename forms undefined -- perhaps
even looking in its public dataset catalog for a dataset named x.c rather
than trying to find filename X file extension C drive A.
--
Prototypes are supertypes of their clones. -- maplesoft
Jun 3 '07 #12

P: n/a
In article <Bv******************************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>Is it legal to do something like this:
#include "x.c" in other source file?
>Yes.
Agreed.
>And is it good idea?
>No.
But this depends entirely on what you're trying to achieve.

I have a program that performs almost identical operations either on
sequences of characters - represented as C strings - or on sequences
of XML elements - represented as counted arrays of struct pointers.
The low-level operations are different (for example, copying a
sequence, determining when we have reached the end of a sequence), but
the control structure is the same. I find it convenient to implement
this by defining a few macros in two files and #including the main
body of the code in each of them. This seems a completely reasonable
technique to me.

Of course there are other ways to do this. I could have abstracted
the differences into structs containing functions pointers, at the
expense of some overhead and the loss of a great deal of automatic
type-checking. But I can see no reason to reject the use of #include
to parametrise code at the lexical level.

-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.
Jun 3 '07 #13

P: n/a
Richard Tobin said:
In article <Bv******************************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>>Is it legal to do something like this:
#include "x.c" in other source file?
>>Yes.

Agreed.
>>And is it good idea?
>>No.

But this depends entirely on what you're trying to achieve.
Yes. Nevertheless, it remains the best answer to give a newbie. By the
time it might be a good idea for him to do it, he'll know enough not to
do it except when it's a good idea.

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.
Jun 3 '07 #14

P: n/a
Barry Schwarz <sc******@doezl.netwrites:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:02:18 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>mr******@gmail.com said:
>>Is it legal to do something like this:
#include "x.c" in other source file?

Yes.
>>And is it good idea?

No.
>>Thank you in advance for your answers,
Igor.

That'th all right, Igor. The uthual way to incorporate multiple

What in the original post prompted you to be this snide? Any value in
your response will be lost on all the participants who struggle
through this group in a second language. Are you having a running
battle with this poster in a different group?
It seems a common problem in this ng.
Jun 3 '07 #15

P: n/a
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrites:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 21:50:10 +0000, in comp.lang.c , Richard
Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>>Barry Schwarz said:
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:02:18 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:

mr******@gmail.com said:
<snip>
>>>>
Thank you in advance for your answers,
Igor.

That'th all right, Igor. The uthual way to incorporate multiple

What in the original post prompted you to be this snide?

What maketh you think I'm being thnide? Have you never read any
Dithcworld bookth?

I guess the problem is that your post could be construed as an
insulting joke.

Imagine if we insisted on comparing you to Richard the Third, hump and
all, or invariably responded in Bronte-esque language and complained
about how you'd treated Cathy?
or even Richard the Turd in the Irish vernacular.
>
Igor is after all a real name as well as a running joke in Discworld.

(and yes, I know you won't read this, you killfiled me because you
thought I kept insulting you. Hmm, curiouser and curiouser..)
--
Jun 3 '07 #16

P: n/a
ro******@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) writes:
In article <11**********************@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups .com>,
<mr******@gmail.comwrote:
>>Is it legal to do something like this:
#include "x.c" in other source file?

Whether it will work or not is implementation defined. If my memory
serves me correctly this evening, the preprocessor is only -required-
to provide a token-to-filename mapping mechanism for the .h extension
and for one directory.

The C preprocessor is -allowed- to require the user to write the
filename token in a manner quite different than the host operating system
uses to name files.
[...]

C99 6.10.2p4, p5:

... The method by which a sequence of preprocessing tokens between
a < and a preprocessing token pair or a pair of " characters is
combined into a single header name preprocessing token is
implementation-defined.

The implementation shall provide unique mappings for sequences
consisting of one or more letters or digits (as defined in 5.2.1)
followed by a period (.) and a single letter. The first character
shall be a letter. The implementation may ignore the distinctions
of alphabetical case and restrict the mapping to eight significant
characters before the period.

--
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."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Jun 4 '07 #17

P: n/a
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 21:50:10 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>Barry Schwarz said:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:02:18 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>>mr******@gmail.com said:
<snip>
>>>
Thank you in advance for your answers,
Igor.

That'th all right, Igor. The uthual way to incorporate multiple

What in the original post prompted you to be this snide?

What maketh you think I'm being thnide? Have you never read any
Dithcworld bookth?
Nope, never heard of them. And based on your post, I can't tell if
the title should be Discworld or Dizcworld. But then again, it
doesn't really matter.
Remove del for email
Jun 4 '07 #18

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Barry Schwarz said:
>Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>>mr******@gmail.com said:
<snip>
>>>
Thank you in advance for your answers,

That'th all right, Igor. The uthual way to incorporate multiple

What in the original post prompted you to be this snide?

What maketh you think I'm being thnide? Have you never read any
Dithcworld bookth?
Your answer. It may not appear so to you, but it does to the
average reader. The fact that the enquiry was in good English does
not overide the OPs name.

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
<http://kadaitcha.cx/vista/dogsbreakfast/index.html>
cbfalconer at maineline dot net

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Jun 4 '07 #19

P: n/a
Walter Roberson wrote:
<mr******@gmail.comwrote:
>Is it legal to do something like this:
#include "x.c" in other source file?

Whether it will work or not is implementation defined. If my
memory serves me correctly this evening, the preprocessor is only
-required- to provide a token-to-filename mapping mechanism for
the .h extension and for one directory.
Your memory is wrong. There is no reason to even assume the local
file system has extensions. From N869:

4. Preprocessing directives are executed, macro
invocations are expanded, and _Pragma unary operator
expressions are executed. If a character sequence
that matches the syntax of a universal character name
is produced by token concatenation (6.10.3.3), the
behavior is undefined. A #include preprocessing
directive causes the named header or source file to be
processed from phase 1 through phase 4, recursively.
All preprocessing directives are then deleted.

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
<http://kadaitcha.cx/vista/dogsbreakfast/index.html>
cbfalconer at maineline dot net
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Jun 4 '07 #20

P: n/a
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 22:27:54 +0000 (UTC), in comp.lang.c ,
ro******@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) wrote:
>In article <11**********************@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups .com>,
<mr******@gmail.comwrote:
>>Is it legal to do something like this:
#include "x.c" in other source file?

Whether it will work or not is implementation defined. If my memory
serves me correctly this evening, the preprocessor is only -required-
to provide a token-to-filename mapping mechanism for the .h extension
and for one directory.
AFAIR the interpretation of the token between the "" or <is left to
the implementation.

--
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
Jun 4 '07 #21

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
mr******@gmail.com said:
Is it legal to do something like this:
#include "x.c" in other source file?

Yes.
And is it good idea?

No.
[...]

It has its uses. Consider a file which is included in a "project"
(quotes used because C doesn't define the word, but most people
can infer its meaning from context), which is also included, in a
slightly different customized version, in another "project".

The customized version uses a file that consists solely of:

#define USE_CUSTOM_VERSION
#include "generic_version.c"

The "generic_version.c" source file then has some #ifdef's on the
USE_CUSTOM_VERSION name to make different versions.

Yes, this could be done by using command-line flags to #define
the symbol for you, but this is compiler-specific, especially
when you consider that you might want both "object files" to be
available without recompiling, whereas the two-file method is
portable.

--
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
| Kenneth J. Brody | www.hvcomputer.com | #include |
| kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com | <std_disclaimer.h|
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
Don't e-mail me at: <mailto:Th*************@gmail.com>

Jun 4 '07 #22

P: n/a
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:02:18 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
mr******@gmail.com said:
>Is it legal to do something like this:
#include "x.c" in other source file?

Yes.
>And is it good idea?

No.
>Thank you in advance for your answers,
Igor.

That'th all right, Igor. The uthual way to incorporate multiple
thourtheth into one program ith to compile them theparately, and then
link them together. For ecthample, if you are uthing the GNU compiler
(which begth to be lithped, but I lack thuffithient thpittle), you
might do thith:

gcc -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic -c -o x.o x.c
gcc -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic -c -o y.o y.c
gcc -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic -c -o z.o z.c
gcc -W -Wall -ansi -pedantic -o foo x.o y.o z.o

Might I altho thuggetht that you invethtigate your implementathion'th
third-party library fathilitieth?
What brought that on?

--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ
Jun 4 '07 #23

P: n/a
Believe it or not, I wrote:
>>Might I altho thuggetht that you invethtigate your implementathion'th
third-party library fathilitieth?
Al Balmer said:
What brought that on?
You have to be a Discworld aficionado to understand. My apologies again
to the OP.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.
Jun 4 '07 #24

P: n/a
In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote:
>ro******@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) writes:
>In article <11**********************@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups .com>,
<mr******@gmail.comwrote:
>>>Is it legal to do something like this:
#include "x.c" in other source file?
>Whether it will work or not is implementation defined. If my memory
serves me correctly this evening, the preprocessor is only -required-
to provide a token-to-filename mapping mechanism for the .h extension
and for one directory.
>C99 6.10.2p4, p5:
... The method by which a sequence of preprocessing tokens between
a < and a preprocessing token pair or a pair of " characters is
combined into a single header name preprocessing token is
implementation-defined.
The implementation shall provide unique mappings for sequences
consisting of one or more letters or digits (as defined in 5.2.1)
followed by a period (.) and a single letter. The first character
shall be a letter. The implementation may ignore the distinctions
of alphabetical case and restrict the mapping to eight significant
characters before the period.
Thanks for the clarification, Keith. Checking, I see that C89 only
required support for six significant characters, and I also see
that in C89 there was no mandatory support for digits in the sequence.

I was definitely wrong about 'h' being the only extension that
needs to be supported, and since the OP did live within the single-letter
extension limit, that makes my caveat to the OP overall incorrect.
--
"law -- it's a commodity"
-- Andrew Ryan (The Globe and Mail, 2005/11/26)
Jun 4 '07 #25

P: n/a
Barry Schwarz wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 21:50:10 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>Barry Schwarz said:
>>On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:02:18 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:

mr******@gmail.com said:
<snip>
>>>>Thank you in advance for your answers,
Igor.
That'th all right, Igor. The uthual way to incorporate multiple
What in the original post prompted you to be this snide?
What maketh you think I'm being thnide? Have you never read any
Dithcworld bookth?

Nope, never heard of them. And based on your post, I can't tell if
the title should be Discworld or Dizcworld. But then again, it
doesn't really matter.
For the record: I have never heard of it either. Should I?
Jun 4 '07 #26

P: n/a
On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 18:31:38 GMT, in comp.lang.c , Johan Bengtsson
<qw*******@hotmail.comwrote:
>Barry Schwarz wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 21:50:10 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>>What maketh you think I'm being thnide? Have you never read any
Dithcworld bookth?

Nope, never heard of them. And based on your post, I can't tell if
the title should be Discworld or Dizcworld. But then again, it
doesn't really matter.

For the record: I have never heard of it either. Should I?
Golly. Terry Pratchett's Discworld series is only about the most
successful fantasy series around at the moment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discworld

"Newly released Discworld books regularly top The Sunday Times
bestsellers list, making Pratchett the UK's best-selling author in the
1990s. He ... still holds the record for the most shoplifted books.
Discworld novels have also won awards such as the Prometheus Award and
the Carnegie Medal. In the BBC's Big Read, five Discworld books were
in the top 100, and a total of fifteen in the top 200."

--
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
Jun 4 '07 #27

P: n/a
Mark McIntyre wrote:
>
Golly. Terry Pratchett's Discworld series is only about the most
successful fantasy series around at the moment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discworld

"Newly released Discworld books regularly top The Sunday Times
bestsellers list, making Pratchett the UK's best-selling author in the
1990s. He ... still holds the record for the most shoplifted books.
Discworld novels have also won awards such as the Prometheus Award and
the Carnegie Medal. In the BBC's Big Read, five Discworld books were
in the top 100, and a total of fifteen in the top 200."
Ahhh, I put them on my wishlist for birthday and christmas then...
Jun 4 '07 #28

P: n/a
Johan Bengtsson <qw*******@hotmail.comwrites:
Barry Schwarz wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 21:50:10 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>>Barry Schwarz said:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:02:18 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
mr******@gmail.com said:
<snip>
>Thank you in advance for your answers,
>Igor.
That'th all right, Igor. The uthual way to incorporate multiple
What in the original post prompted you to be this snide?
What maketh you think I'm being thnide? Have you never read any
Dithcworld bookth?
Nope, never heard of them. And based on your post, I can't tell if
the title should be Discworld or Dizcworld. But then again, it
doesn't really matter.

For the record: I have never heard of it either. Should I?
<WAY_OT>
Discworld is a series of satirical fantasy novels by Terry Pratchett.
I'm sorry to say I haven't read them myself, but I assume there's a
running joke about a character named Igor, probably based on the
character Igor from the Frankenstein movies, which is what I
originally assumed RH was referring to ("Yeth, Mathter!"). If you're
really curious, Wikipedia has an article on Igor at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_(Discworld)>.

Since RH has apologized to the OP, I won't comment further.
</WAY_OT>

--
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."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Jun 4 '07 #29

P: n/a
Keith Thompson wrote:

<WAY_OT>
Discworld is a series of satirical fantasy novels by Terry Pratchett.
I'm sorry to say I haven't read them myself, but I assume there's a
running joke about a character named Igor, probably based on the
character Igor from the Frankenstein movies, which is what I
originally assumed RH was referring to ("Yeth, Mathter!"). If you're
really curious, Wikipedia has an article on Igor at
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_(Discworld)>.

Since RH has apologized to the OP, I won't comment further.
</WAY_OT>

Actually, Igor isn't *a* character, it's a race/profession of many
Igors.


Brian
Jun 4 '07 #30

P: n/a
"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote in message
news:5M*********************@bt.com...
Don Bruder said:
In article <a3********************************@4ax.com>,
Barry Schwarz <sc******@doezl.netwrote:
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:02:18 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:

mr******@gmail.com said:
<snip>

Thank you in advance for your answers,
Igor.

That'th all right, Igor. The uthual way to incorporate multiple

What in the original post prompted you to be this snide?
So I'm not alone?

(I thought the same thing.)

Then I apologise unreservedly to the OP. Silly joke gone wrong.
Sorry.

At least it /was/ funny if you got it(and it even answered the
question). Of course for people who havn't read and Discworld books
it would probably seem a little snide and uncalled for.
Jun 5 '07 #31

P: n/a
BWIGLEY said:
"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote in message
news:5M*********************@bt.com...
<snip>
>>
Then I apologise unreservedly to the OP. Silly joke gone wrong.
Sorry.

At least it /was/ funny if you got it(and it even answered the
question).
Oh, blethth you, thir - I wath beginning to feel very lonely in here...

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.
Jun 5 '07 #32

P: n/a
>>>>"JB" == Johan Bengtsson <qw*******@hotmail.comwrites:

JBMark McIntyre wrote:
>Golly. Terry Pratchett's Discworld series is only about the
most successful fantasy series around at the
moment.
JBAhhh, I put them on my wishlist for birthday and christmas
JBthen...

Put *one* on your wishlist; some people (such as myself) don't care
for them. I can see what's supposed to be funny in them, and I can
see how they amuse and delight other people, but they just don't work
for me.

Charlton

--
Charlton Wilbur
cw*****@chromatico.net
Jun 7 '07 #33

P: n/a
Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>>>>>"JB" == Johan Bengtsson <qw*******@hotmail.comwrites:

JBMark McIntyre wrote:
>Golly. Terry Pratchett's Discworld series is only about the
>most successful fantasy series around at the
>moment.

JBAhhh, I put them on my wishlist for birthday and christmas
JBthen...

Put *one* on your wishlist; some people (such as myself) don't care
for them. I can see what's supposed to be funny in them, and I can
see how they amuse and delight other people, but they just don't work
for me.
Good general advice, I do however think (from the description in
wikipedia) that it is safe for me to wish them all, I am quite sure I
will appreciate it.
Jun 7 '07 #34

P: n/a
"Johan Bengtsson" <qw*******@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:CA****************@newsb.telia.net...
Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>>>>"JB" == Johan Bengtsson <qw*******@hotmail.comwrites:
JBMark McIntyre wrote:
>Golly. Terry Pratchett's Discworld series is only about the
>most successful fantasy series around at the
>moment.
JBAhhh, I put them on my wishlist for birthday and christmas
JBthen...

Put *one* on your wishlist; some people (such as myself) don't
care
for them. I can see what's supposed to be funny in them, and I
can
see how they amuse and delight other people, but they just don't
work
for me.
Good general advice, I do however think (from the description in
wikipedia) that it is safe for me to wish them all, I am quite sure
I
will appreciate it.
Yes, you should. A couple of my favourite qoutes have got to be:

Of course, it's very important to be sober when you take an exam. Many
worthwhile careers in the street-cleansing, fruit-picking, and
subway-guitar-playing industries have been founded on a lack of
understanding of this simple fact.
-- Moving Pictures

It was so much easier to blame it on Them. It was bleakly depressing
to think that They were Us. If it was Them, then nothing was anyone's
fault. If it was Us, what did that make Me? After all, I'm one of Us.
I must be. I've certainly never thought of myself as one of Thrm. No
one ever thinks of themselves as one of Them. We're always one of Us.
It's Them that do the bad things.
-- Jingo

Rincewind had always been happy to think of himself as a racist. The
One Hundred Meters, the Mile, the Marathon -- hed run them all. Later,
when he learned with some surprise what the word actually meant, he'd
been equally certain he wasn't one.
-- The Last Continent

God, that was a bit of pointless (off topic) typing.
Jun 8 '07 #35

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.