469,330 Members | 1,270 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 469,330 developers. It's quick & easy.

How many levels of pointers can you have?

This question is occur in interview. Please help me.

Jun 6 '07
158 7976
"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:5d*************@mid.individual.net...
Joachim Schmitz wrote:
>"Chris Hills" <ch***@phaedsys.orgschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:0d**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk... >


Why don't you two learn how to trim your damn quotes?
Why should I? Most of the previous posters in that thread didn't (if I got
it right, you didn't leave a lot of context to prove) and you didn't
complain to them.
Instead you swear at me, great :-(

Bye, Jojo
Jun 11 '07 #101
Joachim Schmitz said:
"Default User" schrieb...
<snip>
>Why don't you two learn how to trim your damn quotes?
Why should I?
Because it's the right thing to do.
Most of the previous posters in that thread didn't
What has that to do with it? People will consider you responsible for
*your* posting behaviour, not theirs.
(if I
got it right, you didn't leave a lot of context to prove) and you
didn't complain to them.
See above, where he says "you two", so he's not just picking on you.
Instead you swear at me, great :-(
He shouldn't have done that. But that's his problem, not yours. Learning
how to snip properly is your problem, not his.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.
Jun 11 '07 #102
In article <21************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk>, Flash Gordon
<sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrites
>Richard Heathfield wrote, On 10/06/07 22:46:
>Chris Hills said (in a reply to Keith Thompson):

<snip>
>>There were some discussions as to whether MISRA-C3 should reference
C99. Any suggestions?
Why bother? Almost nobody uses it. Why reference an almost unused
standard? I can see why you might want to refer to C99 in, say, a
tutorial - just to make people aware that it exists and broadly what
its features are - but otherwise it seems pretty pointless.

<snip>

I my opinion it depends on how much clout the MISRA group has. If they
can effectively force the compiler writers for the chips used in their
domain to conform to C99 then them doing so would be a good thing in my
opinion.
Why?
>However, if the compiler vendors will just ignore it then MISRA should
stick to C95. After all, I don't want my car failing because the code
used a C99 feature that was not properly implemented by the compiler!
Actually the compiler writers do seem to take note of MISRA-C. Many
include MISRA checkers of MISRA- compliant code. However.... MISRA-C is
a coding standard to use with tools that are in use now. That is why
it is based on C90+

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Jun 11 '07 #103
In article <46***************@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer
<cb********@yahoo.comwrites
>Chris Hills wrote:
>Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrites
... snip ...
>>
>>(I hope to see that change someday; if gcc's C99 conformance is
ever completed, that might finally provide the impetus to make
it happen.)

I doubt it. Besides by the time the majority get close to C99
compliance it will be C20** I expect.

Many commercial compilers use C99 complaint front ends. It is
just that the seen no need to rush to make the whole compiler
c99 compliant.

I believe the major problem is updating all those libraries.
Not at all. There are several C99 libraries out there. It is just that
there is no demand for C99 in the real world.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Jun 11 '07 #104
Joachim Schmitz wrote:
"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:5d*************@mid.individual.net...
Joachim Schmitz wrote:
>"Chris Hills" <ch***@phaedsys.orgschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:0d**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk... >

Why don't you two learn how to trim your damn quotes?
Why should I? Most of the previous posters in that thread didn't (if
I got it right, you didn't leave a lot of context to prove) and you
didn't complain to them.
Try to learn to read. I left two attributions, you and Chris Hills, who
are responsible for the back and forth non-trimmed posting. I
specifically said "you two".

Besides, regardless of whether anybody else did or did not trim quotes,
you didn't.


Brian
Jun 11 '07 #105
"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.invalidschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:st******************************@bt.com...
Joachim Schmitz said:
>"Default User" schrieb...
<snip>
>>Why don't you two learn how to trim your damn quotes?
Why should I?

Because it's the right thing to do.
So? Well maybe it is, but certainly not if asked with that tone, that was my
main concern.
>Most of the previous posters in that thread didn't

What has that to do with it? People will consider you responsible for
*your* posting behaviour, not theirs.
>(if I
got it right, you didn't leave a lot of context to prove) and you
didn't complain to them.

See above, where he says "you two", so he's not just picking on you.
Oops, missed the 'two', reading can be of advandage sometimes ;-)
But insulting two doesn't make it any better, does it?
>Instead you swear at me, great :-(

He shouldn't have done that. But that's his problem, not yours.
That was what I'm complaining about.
Learning how to snip properly is your problem, not his.
Point taken... bit I did (and still don't) consided that particular one
having been too long.

Bye, Jojo
Jun 11 '07 #106
"Chris Hills" <ch***@phaedsys.orgschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:Dh**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
In article <f4**********@online.de>, Joachim Schmitz
<no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrites
>>"Chris Hills" <ch***@phaedsys.orgschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:0d**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>In article <f4**********@online.de>, Joachim Schmitz
<no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrites
<snip>
>
Then you are a complete idiot who will be ignored.
I can live getting ignored by you then. And will do the same to you.
<snip>
Now that proves you are an idiot.
That only proves that you're impolite and a troll. If insults is all you can
come up with...
You will never work in safety critical or high reliability SW development
with an attitude like that.
Now guess where I work...
It is unprofessional and dangerous.
Of course proper testing of the apps is needed befor deployment. Relying on
one's own coding capabilities and relying on some compiler to behave a per
it's specification won't do.
Regardless whether this specification is in a standard or in the compilers
documentation.

<snip>
They don't they just say they are C compilers.
No, some claim compliance with ANSI C89, others with ISO C90 and very few
even ISO C99.
Wrtitten on the package and in their documentation. Part of the contract to
the buyer.
They don't claim compliance. It's that simple.
Not here. I'm using a compiler where the vendor claims it to be ANSI C89
compliant. Should I find out that it is not (and can prove it), I'll get the
vendor to fix that.
Should he refuse a fix, I'll file a case at court for violating a contract
and for distortion of competition.
Well, in this case maybe not, pretty hard to sue your own employer on these
grounds...

Bye, Jojo

Jun 11 '07 #107
"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:5d*************@mid.individual.net...
Joachim Schmitz wrote:
>"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:5d*************@mid.individual.net...
Joachim Schmitz wrote:

"Chris Hills" <ch***@phaedsys.orgschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:0d**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk... >
Why don't you two learn how to trim your damn quotes?
Why should I? Most of the previous posters in that thread didn't (if
I got it right, you didn't leave a lot of context to prove) and you
didn't complain to them.

Try to learn to read. I left two attributions, you and Chris Hills, who
are responsible for the back and forth non-trimmed posting. I
specifically said "you two".
Yes, I missed that word. I didn't not miss the insult though. Learn to
bahave properly in the public.

Bye, Jojo
Jun 11 '07 #108
Joachim Schmitz said:
"Richard Heathfield" schrieb...
>Joachim Schmitz said:
>>"Default User" schrieb...
<snip>
>>>Why don't you two learn how to trim your damn quotes?
Why should I?
Because it's the right thing to do.
So? Well maybe it is, but certainly not if asked with that tone, that
was my main concern.
It remains the right thing to do, irrespective of the tone with which a
particular respondent informed you of the fact. The tone is his
problem. The inadequate snipping is your problem.

<snip>
>>(if I got it right, you didn't leave a lot of context to prove)
and you didn't complain to them.

See above, where he says "you two", so he's not just picking on you.
Oops, missed the 'two', reading can be of advandage sometimes ;-)
Yes, it's always wisest to read before you write.
But insulting two doesn't make it any better, does it?
No, but neither does inadequate snipping of unnecessary context.
>
>>Instead you swear at me, great :-(

He shouldn't have done that. But that's his problem, not yours.
That was what I'm complaining about.
By all means complain about that if you wish but, while you're at it,
please learn to snip.
>Learning how to snip properly is your problem, not his.
Point taken...
Thank you.
bit I did (and still don't) consided that particular
one having been too long.
You provided only 12 lines of new material in an 85-line article; some
of the quoted lines were left over from material first posted over
*eleven* articles upthread. That makes it harder for people to find the
new information you are trying to provide, which is not good for them
and not good for you. For comparison, this reply contains 15 lines of
original material out of 50 or so, which is still on the low side, but
30% is rather higher than 15%.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.
Jun 11 '07 #109
In article <f4**********@online.de>, Joachim Schmitz
<no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrites
>"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:5d*************@mid.individual.net...
>Joachim Schmitz wrote:
>>"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:5d*************@mid.individual.net...
Joachim Schmitz wrote:

"Chris Hills" <ch***@phaedsys.orgschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:0d**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk... >
Why don't you two learn how to trim your damn quotes?
Why should I? Most of the previous posters in that thread didn't (if
I got it right, you didn't leave a lot of context to prove) and you
didn't complain to them.

Try to learn to read. I left two attributions, you and Chris Hills, who
are responsible for the back and forth non-trimmed posting. I
specifically said "you two".
Yes, I missed that word. I didn't not miss the insult though. Learn to
bahave properly in the public.

Bye, Jojo

I was not insulted by the remark and he is correct. The post should have
been trimmed.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Jun 11 '07 #110
Joachim Schmitz wrote:
"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:5d*************@mid.individual.net...
>Why don't you two learn how to trim your damn quotes?
Why should I? Most of the previous posters in that thread didn't
(if I got it right, you didn't leave a lot of context to prove)
and you didn't complain to them.
Try to learn to read. I left two attributions, you and Chris Hills,
who are responsible for the back and forth non-trimmed posting. I
specifically said "you two".
Yes, I missed that word. I didn't not miss the insult though. Learn
to bahave properly in the public.
What insult is this? Ok, I was a bit grumpy perhaps, but I don't see it
as insulting.


Brian
Jun 11 '07 #111
Chris Hills wrote, On 11/06/07 08:55:
In article <21************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk>, Flash Gordon
<sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrites
>Richard Heathfield wrote, On 10/06/07 22:46:
>>Chris Hills said (in a reply to Keith Thompson):

<snip>
>>>There were some discussions as to whether MISRA-C3 should reference
C99. Any suggestions?
Why bother? Almost nobody uses it. Why reference an almost unused
standard? I can see why you might want to refer to C99 in, say, a
tutorial - just to make people aware that it exists and broadly what
its features are - but otherwise it seems pretty pointless.

<snip>

I my opinion it depends on how much clout the MISRA group has. If they
can effectively force the compiler writers for the chips used in their
domain to conform to C99 then them doing so would be a good thing in
my opinion.

Why?
Because then we could use C99 knowing it was not restricting
portability! Personally I do not like the current situation.
>However, if the compiler vendors will just ignore it then MISRA should
stick to C95. After all, I don't want my car failing because the code
used a C99 feature that was not properly implemented by the compiler!

Actually the compiler writers do seem to take note of MISRA-C. Many
include MISRA checkers of MISRA- compliant code. However.... MISRA-C is
a coding standard to use with tools that are in use now. That is why
it is based on C90+
If they announced that a new standard in 2008 (or whatever) was going to
be based on C99 then it could continue to be.
--
Flash Gordon
Jun 11 '07 #112
"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:JJ********@news.boeing.com...
Joachim Schmitz wrote:
>"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:5d*************@mid.individual.net...
>>Why don't you two learn how to trim your damn quotes?
Why should I? Most of the previous posters in that thread didn't
(if I got it right, you didn't leave a lot of context to prove)
and you didn't complain to them.

Try to learn to read. I left two attributions, you and Chris Hills,
who are responsible for the back and forth non-trimmed posting. I
specifically said "you two".
Yes, I missed that word. I didn't not miss the insult though. Learn
to bahave properly in the public.

What insult is this? Ok, I was a bit grumpy perhaps, but I don't see it
as insulting.
"Your damn qoutes" is insulting and meant as such. Had you asked me to trim
qoutes politley for umpteen times before, then the 'damn' might have been
appropriate.

Bye, Jojo
Jun 11 '07 #113
Joachim Schmitz said:
"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:JJ********@news.boeing.com...
<snip>
>What insult is this? Ok, I was a bit grumpy perhaps, but I don't see
it as insulting.
"Your damn qoutes" is insulting
Your failures to snip could be construed as insulting, too, since they
indicate that you value your own time more than that of other people.

You are doing yourself no favours in this sub-thread, and I suggest that
it is in your own best interests to put down the shovel.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.
Jun 11 '07 #114
In article <st************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk>, Flash Gordon
<sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrites
>Chris Hills wrote, On 11/06/07 08:55:
>In article <21************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk>, Flash Gordon
<sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrites
>>Richard Heathfield wrote, On 10/06/07 22:46:
Chris Hills said (in a reply to Keith Thompson):

<snip>

There were some discussions as to whether MISRA-C3 should reference
C99. Any suggestions?
Why bother? Almost nobody uses it. Why reference an almost unused
standard? I can see why you might want to refer to C99 in, say, a
tutorial - just to make people aware that it exists and broadly what
its features are - but otherwise it seems pretty pointless.

<snip>

I my opinion it depends on how much clout the MISRA group has. If
they can effectively force the compiler writers for the chips used
in their domain to conform to C99 then them doing so would be a good
thing in my opinion.
Why?

Because then we could use C99 knowing it was not restricting
portability! Personally I do not like the current situation.
The use C95. It is the de-cfacto standard

Personally I don't like the fact that C99 is something the market did
not want or need. Creating a new standard for the sake of it or adding
in too much makes a bad standard.
>
>>However, if the compiler vendors will just ignore it then MISRA
should stick to C95. After all, I don't want my car failing because
the code used a C99 feature that was not properly implemented by the
compiler!
Actually the compiler writers do seem to take note of MISRA-C. Many
include MISRA checkers of MISRA- compliant code. However.... MISRA-C
is a coding standard to use with tools that are in use now. That is
why it is based on C90+

If they announced that a new standard in 2008 (or whatever) was going
to be based on C99 then it could continue to be.
I am not sure what you mean. whixh2008 standard will be base don C99 ?
ISO C or MISRA-C?

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Jun 11 '07 #115
In article <f4**********@online.de>, Joachim Schmitz
<no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrites
>"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:JJ********@news.boeing.com...
>Joachim Schmitz wrote:
>>"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:5d*************@mid.individual.net...
>>>Why don't you two learn how to trim your damn quotes?
Why should I? Most of the previous posters in that thread didn't
(if I got it right, you didn't leave a lot of context to prove)
and you didn't complain to them.

Try to learn to read. I left two attributions, you and Chris Hills,
who are responsible for the back and forth non-trimmed posting. I
specifically said "you two".
Yes, I missed that word. I didn't not miss the insult though. Learn
to bahave properly in the public.

What insult is this? Ok, I was a bit grumpy perhaps, but I don't see it
as insulting.
"Your damn qoutes" is insulting and meant as such. Had you asked me to trim
qoutes politley for umpteen times before, then the 'damn' might have been
appropriate.

Bye, Jojo
As the other person named I did not find it insulting. Perhaps I am not
thin skinned like others.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Jun 11 '07 #116

"Richard Tobin" <ri*****@cogsci.ed.ac.ukwrote in message
news:f4***********@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk...
In article <eM******************************@bt.com>,
Malcolm McLean <re*******@btinternet.comwrote:
>>I doubt my website would "validate as compliant HTML". That's because I
edit
all the files in a plain text editor. It is too difficult to balance all
the
tags, for instance, so I don't bother.

If by "not balancing all the tags" you mean omitting some start and
end tags, that may be perfectly valid. Unlike XML, SGML (of which
HTML is supposed to be an example) allows many shortcuts in that
respect for the benefit of human authors.

On the other hand, if you mean things like badly-nested elements such as

<x>some<y>random</x>stuff</y>

then it's not valid.
In the original HTML specification some tages, notably the paragraph tag,
were singlets. Now a paragraph is meant to be opened and closed.
Unfortunately that is hard to keep track of in HTML designed to be read by
humans, so I don't bother. It means that there is no easy way of attaching a
style sheet to my pages.

I think I'm right. In practise cascading style sheets tend to entail
non-human editable HTML, which means that one is tied to a particular
editor, which seems to mean that it becomes too much of a performance to
actually put up pages, unless of course it is full time job, which for me it
isn't. However it would be nice to have pages with more sparkle, I must
admit.

--
Free games and programming goodies.
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm

Jun 11 '07 #117

"Charlton Wilbur" <cw*****@chromatico.netwrote in message
news:87************@mithril.chromatico.net...
Oh, no, I think you're correct in that you'd be a poor candidate for
junior web designer. You'd be filtered out for the right reason, to
wit: "it's too much work to do it correctly."
So either I couldn't do the job of a junior web designer, or you can't do
the job of an interviewer. It must be one or the other.

(This is the fifth most popular web site at Leeds University)
--
Free games and programming goodies.
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm

Jun 11 '07 #118
Malcolm McLean wrote:
>
I think I'm right. In practise cascading style sheets tend to entail
non-human editable HTML, which means that one is tied to a particular
editor, which seems to mean that it becomes too much of a performance to
actually put up pages, unless of course it is full time job, which for
me it isn't. However it would be nice to have pages with more sparkle,
I must admit.
<very OTNonsense. CSS helps to make HTML human readable by removing
the presentation clutter.</very OT>

--
Ian Collins.
Jun 11 '07 #119
"Joachim Schmitz" <no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrites:
"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:JJ********@news.boeing.com...
[...]
>What insult is this? Ok, I was a bit grumpy perhaps, but I don't see it
as insulting.
"Your damn qoutes" is insulting and meant as such. Had you asked me to trim
qoutes politley for umpteen times before, then the 'damn' might have been
appropriate.
Different people use various "bad" words with differing levels of
intensity. Some people might use "damn" only when expressing furious
rage; others might use much stronger language to denote nothing more
than mild annoyance. It's difficult to tell which is which in printed
text -- and it usually doesn't matter.

I suggest that this newsgroup works best when the participants (a) try
not to be too offensive, and (b) try not to be too easily offended.
When we can't get everyone to do both, either one will suffice, more
or less. In my humble opinion, "Default User"'s language did not
justify the lengthy discussion that it triggered. You're absolutely
entitled to feel any way you like about it, but my friendly advice is
that you should try to grow a thicker skin.

--
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 11 '07 #120
In article <Rb******************************@bt.com>,
Malcolm McLean <re*******@btinternet.comwrote:
>In the original HTML specification some tages, notably the paragraph tag,
were singlets.
Tim Berners-Lee's original description of HTML reflected his
implementation. Here's what he write in 1992:

http://www.w3.org/History/19921103-h...rkUp/Tags.html

Paragraph

This tag indicates a new paragraph. The exact representation of this
(indentation, leading, etc) is not defined here, and may be a function
of other tags, style sheets etc. The format is simply <P(In
SGML terms, paragraph elements are transmitted in minimised form).

I I can't be sure whether he intended <pto be a empty element, or
have an omitted end tag. Both are forms of SGML minimisation. In any
case that's not relevant to any HTML produced in the last 10 years.
If you write

<p>
Some text
<p>
Some more text

it is shorthand for

<p>
Some text
</p><p>
Some more text
</p>

-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.
Jun 11 '07 #121
Malcolm McLean said:

<snip>
In the original HTML specification some tages, notably the paragraph
tag, were singlets. Now a paragraph is meant to be opened and closed.
Unfortunately that is hard to keep track of in HTML designed to be
read by humans, so I don't bother.
<p>
It's easy, and I bother.
</p>
It means that there is no easy way
of attaching a style sheet to my pages.
I use:

<link rel="stylesheet" href="style.css">

which is easy, and works fine.
I think I'm right. In practise cascading style sheets tend to entail
non-human editable HTML, which means that one is tied to a particular
editor,
I use vim, but any editor will do, and I do all my editing by hand,
including the CSS stuff.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at the above domain, - www.
Jun 11 '07 #122
"Malcolm McLean" <re*******@btinternet.comwrites:
"Charlton Wilbur" <cw*****@chromatico.netwrote in message
news:87************@mithril.chromatico.net...
>Oh, no, I think you're correct in that you'd be a poor candidate for
junior web designer. You'd be filtered out for the right reason, to
wit: "it's too much work to do it correctly."
So either I couldn't do the job of a junior web designer, or you can't
do the job of an interviewer. It must be one or the other.
Yes, but to find out which will require even more off-topic posts.
Only by posting in the right group[1] will these matters be properly
scrutinised.

[1] comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html springs to mind.
--
Ben.
Jun 11 '07 #123
Joachim Schmitz wrote:
"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:JJ********@news.boeing.com...
Joachim Schmitz wrote:
>"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:5d*************@mid.individual.net...
>>>Why don't you two learn how to trim your damn quotes?
Why should I? Most of the previous posters in that thread didn't
(if I got it right, you didn't leave a lot of context to prove)
and you didn't complain to them.

Try to learn to read. I left two attributions, you and Chris
Hills, >>who are responsible for the back and forth non-trimmed
posting. I >>specifically said "you two".
Yes, I missed that word. I didn't not miss the insult though.
Learn to bahave properly in the public.
What insult is this? Ok, I was a bit grumpy perhaps, but I don't
see it as insulting.
"Your damn qoutes" is insulting and meant as such.
You and I have a different definition of insulting.
Had you asked me
to trim qoutes politley for umpteen times before, then the 'damn'
might have been appropriate.
You are entitled to your opinion. I don't really agree.


Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
Jun 11 '07 #124
Keith Thompson wrote:
"Joachim Schmitz" <no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrites:
"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:JJ********@news.boeing.com...
[...]
What insult is this? Ok, I was a bit grumpy perhaps, but I don't
see it >as insulting.
"Your damn qoutes" is insulting and meant as such. Had you asked me
to trim qoutes politley for umpteen times before, then the 'damn'
might have been appropriate.

Different people use various "bad" words with differing levels of
intensity. Some people might use "damn" only when expressing furious
rage; others might use much stronger language to denote nothing more
than mild annoyance. It's difficult to tell which is which in printed
text -- and it usually doesn't matter.

I suggest that this newsgroup works best when the participants (a) try
not to be too offensive, and (b) try not to be too easily offended.
When we can't get everyone to do both, either one will suffice, more
or less. In my humble opinion, "Default User"'s language did not
justify the lengthy discussion that it triggered. You're absolutely
entitled to feel any way you like about it, but my friendly advice is
that you should try to grow a thicker skin.
The usage of "damn" in this case was intended to display a certain
level of exasperation with the situation. Apparently that didn't come
off quite as intended for one of the participants.


Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
Jun 11 '07 #125
Chris Hills wrote, On 11/06/07 21:16:
In article <st************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk>, Flash Gordon
<sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrites
>Chris Hills wrote, On 11/06/07 08:55:
>>In article <21************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk>, Flash Gordon
<sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrites
Richard Heathfield wrote, On 10/06/07 22:46:
Chris Hills said (in a reply to Keith Thompson):

<snip>

>There were some discussions as to whether MISRA-C3 should reference
>C99. Any suggestions?
Why bother? Almost nobody uses it. Why reference an almost unused
standard? I can see why you might want to refer to C99 in, say, a
tutorial - just to make people aware that it exists and broadly
what its features are - but otherwise it seems pretty pointless.

<snip>

I my opinion it depends on how much clout the MISRA group has. If
they can effectively force the compiler writers for the chips used
in their domain to conform to C99 then them doing so would be a
good thing in my opinion.
Why?

Because then we could use C99 knowing it was not restricting
portability! Personally I do not like the current situation.

The use C95. It is the de-cfacto standard

Personally I don't like the fact that C99 is something the market did
not want or need. Creating a new standard for the sake of it or adding
in too much makes a bad standard.
I don't agree with all the decisions made in either standard, however I
prefer a less than ideal standard that is followed than no standard or
only the old standard being followed.
>>>However, if the compiler vendors will just ignore it then MISRA
should stick to C95. After all, I don't want my car failing because
the code used a C99 feature that was not properly implemented by the
compiler!
Actually the compiler writers do seem to take note of MISRA-C. Many
include MISRA checkers of MISRA- compliant code. However.... MISRA-C
is a coding standard to use with tools that are in use now. That is
why it is based on C90+

If they announced that a new standard in 2008 (or whatever) was going
to be based on C99 then it could continue to be.

I am not sure what you mean. whixh2008 standard will be base don C99 ?
ISO C or MISRA-C?
I mean that is MISRA announced that the next standard would be based on
C99 and a date for it and that forced enough compilers to follow it,
then by the time the new MISRA standard came in to force it would be one
for the then current tools.
--
Flash Gordon
Jun 11 '07 #126
Joachim Schmitz wrote:
"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comschrieb:
.... snip ...
>>
Try to learn to read. I left two attributions, you and Chris
Hills, who are responsible for the back and forth non-trimmed
posting. I specifically said "you two".

Yes, I missed that word. I didn't not miss the insult though.
Learn to bahave properly in the public.
You need to learn to largely ignore impolite insulters here. This
is for your own good.

--
<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 11 '07 #127
Eric Sosman <es*****@acm-dot-org.invalidwrote:
A thousand thanks, but in that long-past time I was
not yet THE Eric Sosman; I was just Eric Sosman, young and
dumb. Nowadays I'm THE Eric Sosman, senile but cunning.
Perhaps there is hope for me :-)

--
C. Benson Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
cbmanica(at)gmail.com | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
Jun 12 '07 #128
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:11:51 -0400, CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>Chris Hills wrote:
>Keith Thompson wrote:
... snip ...
>>
>>Frankly, I hope that's not entirely true. To take just one
example, arithmetic on void*, particularly the way gcc implements
it, is just ugly (sizeof(void)==1???).

The problem is pragmatically speaking the Gcc dialect is very
widely spread. It is far more common than C99. Also there is a
lot of freely available source that uses the gcc dialect.

But you are not stuck with it. "-W -Wall -ansi -pedantic" converts
gcc into a standard C compiler. As I suspect you know.
I thought one of ANSI or ISO adopted the C standard in 1989 and the
other adopted it in 1990. So isn't "-ansi -pedantic" sufficient to
cover both? Are the "-W -Wall" options necessary to put gcc into a
stadnard C compiler mode?

And what is different between just "-ansi" and just "-pedantic"? And
why is it called "-pedantic"--why not call it "-iso" if that is what
it really is?

When a reference to C90 is made in this newsgroup, does it mean ANSI C
or ISO C or both?

Given all of these reasonable questions, how is any reasonable person
expected to know that "-W -Wall -ansi -pedantic" instead of just
"-ansi -pedantic" or something else (e.g., "-stdc") converts gcc into
a standard C compiler? Reading the gcc manual a couple of times
doesn't really clarify things. I guess YMMV.

Regards
--
jay

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/pro...a/default.mspx
Jun 12 '07 #129
In article <kp********************************@4ax.com>, jaysome
<ja*****@hotmail.comwrites
>On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:11:51 -0400, CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com>
wrote:

When a reference to C90 is made in this newsgroup, does it mean ANSI C
or ISO C or both?
C89 is ANSI
C90 is ISO
C95 is ISO
C99 is ISO
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Jun 12 '07 #130
In article <7a************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk>, Flash Gordon
<sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrites
>Chris Hills wrote, On 11/06/07 21:16:
>In article <st************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk>, Flash Gordon
>>If they announced that a new standard in 2008 (or whatever) was
going to be based on C99 then it could continue to be.
I am not sure what you mean. whixh2008 standard will be base don C99
? ISO C or MISRA-C?

I mean that is MISRA announced that the next standard would be based on
C99 and a date for it and that forced enough compilers to follow it,
then by the time the new MISRA standard came in to force it would be
one for the then current tools.
I doubt MISRA will do that. There is no point

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Jun 12 '07 #131
jaysome wrote, On 12/06/07 07:07:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:11:51 -0400, CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>Chris Hills wrote:
>>Keith Thompson wrote:
... snip ...
>>>Frankly, I hope that's not entirely true. To take just one
example, arithmetic on void*, particularly the way gcc implements
it, is just ugly (sizeof(void)==1???).
The problem is pragmatically speaking the Gcc dialect is very
widely spread. It is far more common than C99. Also there is a
lot of freely available source that uses the gcc dialect.
But you are not stuck with it. "-W -Wall -ansi -pedantic" converts
gcc into a standard C compiler. As I suspect you know.

I thought one of ANSI or ISO adopted the C standard in 1989 and the
other adopted it in 1990. So isn't "-ansi -pedantic" sufficient to
cover both? Are the "-W -Wall" options necessary to put gcc into a
stadnard C compiler mode?
This really belongs somewhere like gnu.gcc.help, but I will answer some
of the points. For C90 compliance you just need "-ansi -pedantic", the
"-W -Wall" or "-Wextra -Wall" switches make gcc warn about a lot more
dodgy things that are usually bugs where the C standard does not require
a diagnostic.
And what is different between just "-ansi" and just "-pedantic"? And
why is it called "-pedantic"--why not call it "-iso" if that is what
it really is?
-ansi enables some of the C90 compliance, -pedantic enables a separate
collection of compliance features, so you need both. Basically, it seems
that some people on the GCC development team think some parts of the
standard are going too far, so they did -ansi to enable what they wanted
and -pedantic to enable the additional stuff which they think people
should not want.
When a reference to C90 is made in this newsgroup, does it mean ANSI C
or ISO C or both?
Both since ANSI C89 and ISO C90 describe the same language.
Given all of these reasonable questions, how is any reasonable person
expected to know that "-W -Wall -ansi -pedantic" instead of just
"-ansi -pedantic" or something else (e.g., "-stdc") converts gcc into
a standard C compiler? Reading the gcc manual a couple of times
doesn't really clarify things. I guess YMMV.
Well, some of us worked it out from the gcc documentation, but as for
the rest we tend to tell people how to get compilers in to standard
compliant mode where we know and also what other switches will help by
enabling more warnings.

On which subject, if you want partial C99 conformance you need to use a
different switch, but I'm too lazy to look it up this morning :-)
--
Flash Gordon
Jun 12 '07 #132
jaysome <ja*****@hotmail.comwrites:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:11:51 -0400, CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>>Chris Hills wrote:
>>Keith Thompson wrote:
... snip ...
>>>
Frankly, I hope that's not entirely true. To take just one
example, arithmetic on void*, particularly the way gcc implements
it, is just ugly (sizeof(void)==1???).

The problem is pragmatically speaking the Gcc dialect is very
widely spread. It is far more common than C99. Also there is a
lot of freely available source that uses the gcc dialect.

But you are not stuck with it. "-W -Wall -ansi -pedantic" converts
gcc into a standard C compiler. As I suspect you know.

I thought one of ANSI or ISO adopted the C standard in 1989 and the
other adopted it in 1990. So isn't "-ansi -pedantic" sufficient to
cover both? Are the "-W -Wall" options necessary to put gcc into a
stadnard C compiler mode?
Questions about gcc should probably be asked in gnu.gcc.help, but
since this relates to ISO C conformance (and gcc's possible influence
on C99 adoption), it's at least partly topical here.

ANSI produced the first C standard in 1989 (C89). ISO adopted that
same standard in 1990, with some editorial changes (C90); ANSI then
adopted the ISO C90 standard. The ANSI C89 and ISO C90 standards are
two documents that describe exactly the same language.

ISO produced a revision of the C standard (C99) in 1999; ANSI has
adopted the ISO C99 standard.

gcc's documentation explains that "-ansi" causes it to "support all
ISO C89 programs" ("ISO C89" is a misnomer); it doesn't produce all
required diagnostics, though, so by itself that doesn't cause it to be
conforming. Synonyms for "-ansi" are "-std=c89", "-std=iso9899:1990".
Adding "-W -Wall -pedantic" causes gcc to produce more diagnostics.
I'm not certain which options are required to cause gcc to conform to
C90 (apart from bugs), but "-ansi -pedantic -W -Wall" comes reasonably
close as far as I know.
And what is different between just "-ansi" and just "-pedantic"? And
why is it called "-pedantic"--why not call it "-iso" if that is what
it really is?
The authors of gcc decided to call it "-pedantic", for reasons of
their own.
When a reference to C90 is made in this newsgroup, does it mean ANSI C
or ISO C or both?
Strictly speaking, neither, since the current ISO standard (and ANSI
standard) is C99. But as I said above, C89 and C90 are the same
language.
Given all of these reasonable questions, how is any reasonable person
expected to know that "-W -Wall -ansi -pedantic" instead of just
"-ansi -pedantic" or something else (e.g., "-stdc") converts gcc into
a standard C compiler? Reading the gcc manual a couple of times
doesn't really clarify things. I guess YMMV.
I think that's on the far side of the topicality boundary. Try
gnu.gcc.help.

--
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 12 '07 #133
"Keith Thompson" <ks***@mib.orgschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:ln************@nuthaus.mib.org...
"Joachim Schmitz" <no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrites:
[...]
>
Different people use various "bad" words with differing levels of
intensity. Some people might use "damn" only when expressing furious
rage; others might use much stronger language to denote nothing more
than mild annoyance. It's difficult to tell which is which in printed
text -- and it usually doesn't matter.

I suggest that this newsgroup works best when the participants (a) try
not to be too offensive, and (b) try not to be too easily offended.
Usually I'm not that easily offended. Guess I had a bad day.
When we can't get everyone to do both, either one will suffice, more
or less. In my humble opinion, "Default User"'s language did not
justify the lengthy discussion that it triggered. You're absolutely
entitled to feel any way you like about it, but my friendly advice is
that you should try to grow a thicker skin.
True. I'll put it to a rest then...

Bye, Jojo
Jun 12 '07 #134
Malcolm McLean wrote:
>
I think I'm right. In practise cascading style sheets tend to entail
non-human editable HTML, which means that one is tied to a particular
editor,
That sounds like nonsense to me; I do hand-written HTML with stylesheets,
using a text editor. (Sometimes the hand-written is Ruby rhtml files, but
the principle is the same: /I/ am writing most of the HTML, not the
editor and not Ruby.)

And I'm so off-topic I'll stop.

--
Hewlett-Packard Limited Cain Road, Bracknell, registered no:
registered office: Berks RG12 1HN 690597 England

Jun 12 '07 #135
jaysome wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 20:11:51 -0400, CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>>Chris Hills wrote:
>>Keith Thompson wrote:
... snip ...
>>>
Frankly, I hope that's not entirely true. To take just one
example, arithmetic on void*, particularly the way gcc implements
it, is just ugly (sizeof(void)==1???).

The problem is pragmatically speaking the Gcc dialect is very
widely spread. It is far more common than C99. Also there is a
lot of freely available source that uses the gcc dialect.

But you are not stuck with it. "-W -Wall -ansi -pedantic" converts
gcc into a standard C compiler. As I suspect you know.

I thought one of ANSI or ISO adopted the C standard in 1989 and the
other adopted it in 1990. So isn't "-ansi -pedantic" sufficient to
cover both? Are the "-W -Wall" options necessary to put gcc into a
stadnard C compiler mode?
Yes, -ansi -pedantic is enough. -Wall -Wextra (or the older name -W) just
enable extra warnings, which are not required by any standard.
And what is different between just "-ansi" and just "-pedantic"? And
why is it called "-pedantic"--why not call it "-iso" if that is what
it really is?

When a reference to C90 is made in this newsgroup, does it mean ANSI C
or ISO C or both?

Given all of these reasonable questions, how is any reasonable person
expected to know that "-W -Wall -ansi -pedantic" instead of just
"-ansi -pedantic" or something else (e.g., "-stdc") converts gcc into
a standard C compiler? Reading the gcc manual a couple of times
doesn't really clarify things. I guess YMMV.
To quote from the GCC documentation, from the section "Language Standards
Supported by GCC":
" The original ANSI C standard (X3.159-1989) was ratified in 1989 and
published in 1990. This standard was ratified as an ISO standard
(ISO/IEC 9899:1990) later in 1990. There were no technical differences
between these publications, although the sections of the ANSI standard
were renumbered and became clauses in the ISO standard. This standard,
in both its forms, is commonly known as "C89", or occasionally as
"C90", from the dates of ratification. The ANSI standard, but not the
ISO standard, also came with a Rationale document. To select this
standard in GCC, use one of the options `-ansi', `-std=c89' or
`-std=iso9899:1990'; to obtain all the diagnostics required by the
standard, you should also specify `-pedantic' (or `-pedantic-errors' if
you want them to be errors rather than warnings). *Note Options
Controlling C Dialect: C Dialect Options. "

Note though that ANSI and ISO have both adopted C99, so when using "ANSI C"
and "ISO C" as you did, the version of the standard that is referred to
depends on the context.
Jun 12 '07 #136
CBFalconer wrote:
Joachim Schmitz wrote:
"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comschrieb:
... snip ...
>
Try to learn to read. I left two attributions, you and Chris
Hills, who are responsible for the back and forth non-trimmed
posting. I specifically said "you two".
Yes, I missed that word. I didn't not miss the insult though.
Learn to bahave properly in the public.

You need to learn to largely ignore impolite insulters here. This
is for your own good.
What about polite insulters, or impolite non-insulters?


Brian
Jun 12 '07 #137
"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrites:
CBFalconer wrote:
[...]
>You need to learn to largely ignore impolite insulters here. This
is for your own good.

What about polite insulters, or impolite non-insulters?
I humbly submit to my most learned friend that that's a stupid
question. 8-)}

--
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 12 '07 #138
Keith Thompson wrote:
"Default User" <de***********@yahoo.comwrites:
CBFalconer wrote:
[...]
You need to learn to largely ignore impolite insulters here. This
is for your own good.
What about polite insulters, or impolite non-insulters?

I humbly submit to my most learned friend that that's a stupid
question. 8-)}
You got your nerve, coming in here and being thoughtful and intelligent
and crap like that.


Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
Jun 12 '07 #139
>>>>"MMcL" == Malcolm McLean <re*******@btinternet.comwrites:

MMcL"Charlton Wilbur" <cw*****@chromatico.netwrote in message
MMcLnews:87************@mithril.chromatico.net...
>Oh, no, I think you're correct in that you'd be a poor
candidate for junior web designer. You'd be filtered out for
the right reason, to wit: "it's too much work to do it
correctly."
MMcLSo either I couldn't do the job of a junior web designer, or
MMcLyou can't do the job of an interviewer. It must be one or
MMcLthe other.

Your pages, if they are popular, are likely popular for reasons other
than their design. You might be a most excellent copywriter; you
might be an authority in your field. I'm not sure that you *can't* do
the job of a junior web designer, but your attitude makes it pretty
clear that you *won't* do the job of a junior web designer correctly.

The distinction between senior and junior web designers is that senior
web designers do things like designing CSS stylesheets and Javascript
behavior, both of which require standards-compliant HTML; if a junior
web designer can't produce standards-compliant web pages, he's a drag
on the process, and not much use at all.

Consider trying to work on a team of C programmers where the junior
programmers disregard all incidences of undefined behavior because the
compiler understands it just fine, and the senior programmers spend
half of their time cleaning up the messes left by the junior
programmers. In any sane shop, this would result in several junior
programmers looking for work. Oddly enough, in this analogous
situation, it winds p with them not being hired in the first place.

Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cw*****@chromatico.net
Jun 12 '07 #140
jaysome wrote:
CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrote:
>Chris Hills wrote:
>>Keith Thompson wrote:
... snip ...
>>>
Frankly, I hope that's not entirely true. To take just one
example, arithmetic on void*, particularly the way gcc implements
it, is just ugly (sizeof(void)==1???).

The problem is pragmatically speaking the Gcc dialect is very
widely spread. It is far more common than C99. Also there is a
lot of freely available source that uses the gcc dialect.
>But you are not stuck with it. "-W -Wall -ansi -pedantic" converts
gcc into a standard C compiler. As I suspect you know.

I thought one of ANSI or ISO adopted the C standard in 1989 and the
other adopted it in 1990. So isn't "-ansi -pedantic" sufficient to
cover both? Are the "-W -Wall" options necessary to put gcc into a
stadnard C compiler mode?

And what is different between just "-ansi" and just "-pedantic"? And
why is it called "-pedantic"--why not call it "-iso" if that is what
it really is?

When a reference to C90 is made in this newsgroup, does it mean ANSI C
or ISO C or both?

Given all of these reasonable questions, how is any reasonable person
expected to know that "-W -Wall -ansi -pedantic" instead of just
"-ansi -pedantic" or something else (e.g., "-stdc") converts gcc into
a standard C compiler? Reading the gcc manual a couple of times
doesn't really clarify things. I guess YMMV.
I suggest reading the gcc manual. However, in general, the -W
things (I use more of them) enable warnings (I assume you want to
know when you are doing something suspicious), -ansi sets
conformance to C95 (or -std=C99 for C99) and pedantic eliminates
gcc extensions. More or less. When (and if) gcc conforms
completely to C99 -ansi will specify that stamdard.

--
<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 12 '07 #141
Chris Hills wrote, On 12/06/07 07:58:
In article <7a************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk>, Flash Gordon
<sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrites
>Chris Hills wrote, On 11/06/07 21:16:
>>In article <st************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk>, Flash Gordon
If they announced that a new standard in 2008 (or whatever) was
going to be based on C99 then it could continue to be.
I am not sure what you mean. whixh2008 standard will be base don C99
? ISO C or MISRA-C?

I mean that is MISRA announced that the next standard would be based
on C99 and a date for it and that forced enough compilers to follow
it, then by the time the new MISRA standard came in to force it would
be one for the then current tools.

I doubt MISRA will do that. There is no point
There is a point if MISRA have enough clout to make it happen, unless
you think the current situation of the current standard not being
implemented is a good thing.

I doubt it will happen, but I think it would be a good thing if it did.
--
Flash Gordon
Jun 13 '07 #142
In article <00************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk>, Flash Gordon
<sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrites
>Chris Hills wrote, On 12/06/07 07:58:
>In article <7a************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk>, Flash Gordon
<sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrites
>>Chris Hills wrote, On 11/06/07 21:16:
In article <st************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk>, Flash Gordon
If they announced that a new standard in 2008 (or whatever) was
>going to be based on C99 then it could continue to be.
I am not sure what you mean. whixh2008 standard will be base don
C99 ? ISO C or MISRA-C?

I mean that is MISRA announced that the next standard would be based
on C99 and a date for it and that forced enough compilers to follow
it, then by the time the new MISRA standard came in to force it would
be one for the then current tools.
I doubt MISRA will do that. There is no point

There is a point if MISRA have enough clout to make it happen, unless
you think the current situation of the current standard not being
implemented is a good thing.
MISRA is about improving the reliability of software. Not getting
involved it the ISO-C battles. MISRA-C works with what is there and in
use. Not what might be.
>I doubt it will happen, but I think it would be a good thing if it did.
Why is it so important to move to C99?

C99 has not been fully implemented in the last 8 years because no one
(ie only a very small minority) really wants it.

Several senior members of the ISO-C wg have said there are features in
it they wish were not there. (Some say parts of it are broken)

The general market has not demanded it.

Compiler writers have had no [serious] pressure to conform to it.

IF you can give some very good reasons why compliance to C99 it worth
spending a lot of time and money on, when C90/5 does everything most
people need, I would be interested to see the arguments.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Jun 13 '07 #143
Chris Hills wrote:
Why is it so important to move to C99?

C99 has not been fully implemented in the last 8 years because no one
(ie only a very small minority) really wants it.
I don't want /all/ of it, but I do want some features of it, and I'd
rather be able to use those features because they were part of a
widely-implemented standard rather than because the compiler I
myself personally for me am likely to use happens to make them available.

(// comments, declarations anywhere, standard booleans -- these are a
few of my favourite things.)

[It is likely that the next piece of C I write [1] will end up not being
C but C++, and that's three of the five reasons why. (Exceptions and
a subset of the class system.)]

[1] For fun, rather than part of anything I do here-at-HP.

--
Hewlett-Packard Limited registered no:
registered office: Cain Road, Bracknell, Berks RG12 1HN 690597 England

Jun 13 '07 #144
1
On 6 7 , 12 40 , madhawi <madhaw...@gmail.comwrote:
This question is occur in interview. Please help me.
Dear friend, we sell all kinds of laptops and guitars . our product
is a quantity best, the price is the lowest in the world, i think you
will be interested in our product . thanks a lot! Our Website:http://
www.prs-123.com/
Msn: pr**********@hotmail.com
mail: pr**********@yahoo.com.cn
thanks for everyone good luck with everyone .
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %
Dear friend, we sell all kinds of laptops and guitars . our product
is a quantity best, the price is the lowest in the world, i think you
will be interested in our product . thanks a lot! Our Website:http://
www.prs-123.com/
Msn: pr**********@hotmail.com
mail: pr**********@yahoo.com.cn
thanks for everyone good luck with everyone .
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %
Dear friend, we sell all kinds of laptops and guitars . our product
is a quantity best, the price is the lowest in the world, i think you
will be interested in our product . thanks a lot! Our Website:http://
www.prs-123.com/
Msn: pr**********@hotmail.com
mail: pr**********@yahoo.com.cn
thanks for everyone good luck with everyone .
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Dear friend, we sell all kinds of laptops and guitars . our product
is a quantity best, the price is the lowest in the world, i think you
will be interested in our product . thanks a lot! Our Website:http://
www.prs-123.com/
Msn: pr**********@hotmail.com
mail: pr**********@yahoo.com.cn
thanks for everyone good luck with everyone .

Jun 13 '07 #145
1
On 6 7 , 4 56 , Chris Dollin <e...@electrichedgehog.netwrote:
Kenneth Brody wrote:
Ben Pfaff wrote:
madhawi <madhaw...@gmail.comwrites:
Subject: How many levels of pointers can you have?
This question is occur in interview. Please help me.
Twelve:
"At least 12."
5.2.4.1 Translation limits
1 The implementation shall be able to translate and execute at
least one program that contains at least one instance of
every one of the following limits:13)
[...]
- 12 pointer, array, and function declarators (in any
combinations) modifying an arithmetic, structure, union,
or incomplete type in a declaration
Now _there's_ a question for the standards committee... Where did
they pick the number 12 from?

Maybe all the compilers allowed "as many as you like (until we
run out of store)", except one that had a 4-bit field for
"number of indirections" in a type with the top three values
reserved for "struct", "union", or "function pointer".

--
Speculative Faction Hedgehog
Otherface: Jena RDF/Owl toolkithttp://jena.sourceforge.net/- -

- -
Dear friend, we sell all kinds of laptops and guitars . our product
is a quantity best, the price is the lowest in the world, i think you
will be interested in our product . thanks a lot! Our Website:http://
www.prs-123.com/
Msn: pr**********@hotmail.com
mail: pr**********@yahoo.com.cn
thanks for everyone good luck with everyone .
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %
Dear friend, we sell all kinds of laptops and guitars . our product
is a quantity best, the price is the lowest in the world, i think you
will be interested in our product . thanks a lot! Our Website:http://
www.prs-123.com/
Msn: pr**********@hotmail.com
mail: pr**********@yahoo.com.cn
thanks for everyone good luck with everyone .
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% %
Dear friend, we sell all kinds of laptops and guitars . our product
is a quantity best, the price is the lowest in the world, i think you
will be interested in our product . thanks a lot! Our Website:http://
www.prs-123.com/
Msn: pr**********@hotmail.com
mail: pr**********@yahoo.com.cn
thanks for everyone good luck with everyone .
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Dear friend, we sell all kinds of laptops and guitars . our product
is a quantity best, the price is the lowest in the world, i think you
will be interested in our product . thanks a lot! Our Website:http://
www.prs-123.com/
Msn: pr**********@hotmail.com
mail: pr**********@yahoo.com.cn
thanks for everyone good luck with everyone .

Jun 13 '07 #146
Chris Hills wrote:
That is what I said.
95% of the C compilers aren't fully C99 conforming anyway.

AFAIK there are only about 6 compilers in the world that are fully C99
conforming. The other 100 odd are not to a greater or lesser extent.
By that definition there isn't even one.

You give me a C compiler, I'll give you conforming code it won't compile.
Jun 14 '07 #147
In article <46*********************@news2.asahi-net.or.jp>, Neil Booth
<dev@null.?.invalidwrites
>Chris Hills wrote:
>That is what I said.
95% of the C compilers aren't fully C99 conforming anyway.
AFAIK there are only about 6 compilers in the world that are fully
C99 conforming. The other 100 odd are not to a greater or lesser extent.

By that definition there isn't even one.
I think there are about 6 fully conforming C99 compilers
>You give me a C compiler, I'll give you conforming code it won't compile.
Which proves what?

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Jun 14 '07 #148
Chris Hills wrote:
In article <46*********************@news2.asahi-net.or.jp>, Neil Booth
<dev@null.?.invalidwrites
>>Chris Hills wrote:
>>That is what I said.
95% of the C compilers aren't fully C99 conforming anyway.
AFAIK there are only about 6 compilers in the world that are fully
C99 conforming. The other 100 odd are not to a greater or lesser extent.

By that definition there isn't even one.

I think there are about 6 fully conforming C99 compilers
>>You give me a C compiler, I'll give you conforming code it won't compile.

Which proves what?
I don't know what exactly you mean by "fully" conforming compilers. If you
mean conforming compilers that accept any correct program (or even just any
strictly conforming program), then such code would prove that the compiler
is not "fully" conforming. I'll assume you were referring to the complete
implementation (including linker, library, etc.). If you just mean
conforming implementations, or if you mean conforming hosted
implementations, then those are intentionally allowed to have bugs, and
because of that there are probably more than six conforming
implementations. If you mean something in between, would you please
clarify? I'm under the impression that you mean a conforming implementation
(or maybe a conforming hosted implementation) that meets certain minimal
QoI standards, but which standards are they?
Jun 14 '07 #149
"Harald van D?k" <tr*****@gmail.comwrote in message
Chris Hills wrote:
>In article <46*********************@news2.asahi-net.or.jp>, Neil Booth
<dev@null.?.invalidwrites
>>>Chris Hills wrote:

That is what I said.
95% of the C compilers aren't fully C99 conforming anyway.
AFAIK there are only about 6 compilers in the world that are fully
C99 conforming. The other 100 odd are not to a greater or lesser extent.

By that definition there isn't even one.

I think there are about 6 fully conforming C99 compilers
>>>You give me a C compiler, I'll give you conforming code it won't compile.

Which proves what?

I don't know what exactly you mean by "fully" conforming compilers. I'm
under the impression that you mean a conforming implementation
(or maybe a conforming hosted implementation) that meets certain minimal
QoI standards, but which standards are they?
The standard is published by ANSI.
If a compiler refuses to accept or generates incorrect behaviour on a
conforming program, then the compiler is not conforming.
If you have an insight into how compilers are constructed you can generate
difficult programs. Thinks like sequences that require many tokens of
lookahead to parse correctly will break more naive compilers.
--
Free games and programming goodies.
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm

Jun 14 '07 #150

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.