468,771 Members | 1,690 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 468,771 developers. It's quick & easy.

What does near intialization mean

Hi
I am using a line of as
char recvedValues[ROWS][COLUMNS] = {'\0'};
in my code. I get a warning as near initialization for
recvedValues[0].
I am using gcc 3.4
Can anybody please explain the meaning.

Thanks
Aditya

Nov 12 '07 #1
65 2873
Aditya wrote:
Hi
I am using a line of as
char recvedValues[ROWS][COLUMNS] = {'\0'};
in my code. I get a warning as near initialization for
recvedValues[0].
I am using gcc 3.4
Can anybody please explain the meaning.
Google for it... Or RTFM perhaps.
Nov 12 '07 #2
Aditya <ad************@gmail.comwrites:
I am using a line of as
char recvedValues[ROWS][COLUMNS] = {'\0'};
in my code. I get a warning as near initialization for
recvedValues[0].
I am using gcc 3.4
Can anybody please explain the meaning.
Not without seeing the actual message, which you didn't quote.

I tried compiling this:

#define ROWS 3
#define COLUMNS 3
char recvedValues[ROWS][COLUMNS] = {'\0'};

with "gcc -c -Wall c.c" (gcc 4.1.3) and got:

c.c:3: warning: missing braces around initializer
c.c:3: warning: (near initialization for 'recvedValues[0]')

gcc is suggesting that you should have a level of braces for each
nesting level of the object. For example, you might instead write:

#define ROWS 3
#define COLUMNS 3
char recvedValues[ROWS][COLUMNS]
= { { '\0', '\0', '\0' },
{ '\0', '\0', '\0' },
{ '\0', '\0', '\0' } };

But the language doens't actually require you to provide all the
braces, or to provide a value for each element of the object being
initialized. You specified '\0' for the first element,
recvedValues[0][0]; the others are implicitly set to zero converted to
the appropriate type.

In fact, this:
{ 0 }
can be used as an initializer for *any* type (but gcc will warn about
it).

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Looking for software development work in the San Diego area.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Nov 12 '07 #3
On Nov 12, 11:51 am, Mark Bluemel <mark_blue...@pobox.comwrote:
Aditya wrote:
Hi
I am using a line of as
char recvedValues[ROWS][COLUMNS] = {'\0'};
in my code. I get a warning as near initialization for
recvedValues[0].
I am using gcc 3.4
Can anybody please explain the meaning.

Google for it... Or RTFM perhaps.
Why do people like you sit on a question and answer group only to
basically tell people to get lost when they ask a question? The
mentality of people like you could provide a psychologist with a whole
thesis.

B2003

Nov 12 '07 #4
Keith Thompson said:

<snip>
In fact, this:
{ 0 }
can be used as an initializer for *any* type (but gcc will warn about
it).
Yes, and I dearly wish it wouldn't. The construct is well-defined,
well-known, and idiomatic. To warn against it is ludicrous (but of course
perfectly legal).

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Nov 12 '07 #5
Boltar wrote:
On Nov 12, 11:51 am, Mark Bluemel <mark_blue...@pobox.comwrote:
>Aditya wrote:
Hi
I am using a line of as
char recvedValues[ROWS][COLUMNS] = {'\0'};
in my code. I get a warning as near initialization for
recvedValues[0].
I am using gcc 3.4
Can anybody please explain the meaning.

Google for it... Or RTFM perhaps.

Why do people like you sit on a question and answer group only to
basically tell people to get lost when they ask a question?
Because newsgroups shouldn't be the /first/ port-of-call when
one needs a question answered?
The mentality of people like you could provide a psychologist with
a whole thesis.
/Anyone's/ mentality would provide material for a thousand theses.

--
Chris "'perverse' doesn't mean 'complex'" Dollin

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

Nov 12 '07 #6
On Nov 12, 2:58 pm, Chris Dollin <chris.dol...@hp.comwrote:
Boltar wrote:
On Nov 12, 11:51 am, Mark Bluemel <mark_blue...@pobox.comwrote:
Aditya wrote:
Hi
I am using a line of as
char recvedValues[ROWS][COLUMNS] = {'\0'};
in my code. I get a warning as near initialization for
recvedValues[0].
I am using gcc 3.4
Can anybody please explain the meaning.
Google for it... Or RTFM perhaps.
Why do people like you sit on a question and answer group only to
basically tell people to get lost when they ask a question?

Because newsgroups shouldn't be the /first/ port-of-call when
one needs a question answered?
Says who?

B2003
Nov 12 '07 #7
Boltar wrote:
On Nov 12, 2:58 pm, Chris Dollin <chris.dol...@hp.comwrote:
>Boltar wrote:
On Nov 12, 11:51 am, Mark Bluemel <mark_blue...@pobox.comwrote:
Aditya wrote:
Hi
I am using a line of as
char recvedValues[ROWS][COLUMNS] = {'\0'};
in my code. I get a warning as near initialization for
recvedValues[0].
I am using gcc 3.4
Can anybody please explain the meaning.
>Google for it... Or RTFM perhaps.
Why do people like you sit on a question and answer group only to
basically tell people to get lost when they ask a question?

Because newsgroups shouldn't be the /first/ port-of-call when
one needs a question answered?

Says who?
I do, for two reasons:

* people learning to find things out for themselves using the search
tools available helps them and the communities they partake in.

* people answering the simpler questions for themselves means that
newsgroups have more resources available for answering the
/complicated/ questions.

* being able to support a question with "I tried looking for X and
only got Y" or "I tried X and got different mysterious result Z"
shows willing and provides extra context and evidence for an answer.

OK, so that's three reasons.

--
Chris "colour me countless" Dollin

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

Nov 12 '07 #8
Boltar said:
On Nov 12, 2:58 pm, Chris Dollin <chris.dol...@hp.comwrote:
>Boltar wrote:
On Nov 12, 11:51 am, Mark Bluemel <mark_blue...@pobox.comwrote:
<snip>
>Google for it... Or RTFM perhaps.
Why do people like you sit on a question and answer group only to
basically tell people to get lost when they ask a question?

Because newsgroups shouldn't be the /first/ port-of-call when
one needs a question answered?

Says who?
Says common sense. More about that in a second, though. Let's first deal
with the anti-authority thing. In a sense, you're right - very few[1]
people can *stop* anyone from posting anything they like here, and in a
way that's a good thing, because nobody likes censorship.

So if it's a question of "I'll post what I like and nobody's gonna stop me,
so there", well, so be it. But those who seek help need to remember that
nobody here is required to help them, and nobody here gets paid for
helping them. So, if they want to attract help, the best way to do it is
to ask for help in a way that attracts that help, rather than repelling
it.

Let me give you a concrete example of that. A few moments ago, I read a
request for C help from someone who has, in the past, habitually acted in
a very offensive way towards those who freely provide expert assistance in
this newsgroup. It is very likely that I could have helped him to get over
his problem quickly and efficiently (although it would have required his
offering more information), but I chose not to bother, because of his
previous posting behaviour, which I don't wish to encourage.

So... why is it a good idea to look for an answer on the Web or in
textbooks rather than in newsgroups? Why is that considered a sensible
first step in one's quest for knowledge? And the answer is very simple:
people's time is limited. Web servers will happily send out pages of
information all day long, but people have other stuff to do. So it makes
sense to seek your answer from time-inexpensive sources such as Web sites
or books *first*. The chances are good that you'll get your answer this
way.

None of the regular contributors to this newsgroup has universal knowledge
of all things; we all come across problems of our own. But in general we
don't bother asking for help here (or indeed in other groups) because,
99.9% of the time, the answer is there for the finding, on a Web site or
in a book. On the very few occasions that one of comp.lang.c's regular
contributors asks for help, it is because he or she has already checked
what he or she considers to be the usual sources of information, and has
drawn a blank there. At *that* point, it is not unreasonable to ask
someone else to spend their time helping the questioner. (Equally, it is
not unreasonable of them to decide not to do that. Their time is their
own.)

So, as a matter of courtesy, it makes sense to seek your answer from other
sources first, and to use this newsgroup as a backstop. (Indeed, that's
why we have an FAQ list - to move some of the common questions offline, so
to speak.)

Can you ignore the courtesies and just plough straight in with your
question, not bothering to do any research yourself? Of course you can -
but equally, the regular contributors to the group can ignore *you* if
they choose. It's up to each of us to use other people's time, and our
own, responsibly.
[1] I say "very few" because there are bound to be exceptions - e.g. maybe
there's an authoritarian regime/company/dad that censors Usenet articles
on servers (or indeed clients) over which it/he has legal jurisdiction. Or
think up your own example.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Nov 12 '07 #9

Chris Dollin wrote:
* people learning to find things out for themselves using the search
tools available helps them and the communities they partake in.
If a newsgroup dedicated to C isn't an online community I'm not sure
what is.
>
* people answering the simpler questions for themselves means that
newsgroups have more resources available for answering the
/complicated/ questions.
The days of 9600 baud modems being clogged up downloading posts have
thankfully departed.
>
* being able to support a question with "I tried looking for X and
only got Y" or "I tried X and got different mysterious result Z"
shows willing and provides extra context and evidence for an answer.
This isn't school, showing willing is irrelevant.
>
OK, so that's three reasons.
3 not very good ones.

B2003

Nov 12 '07 #10
In article <11**********************@50g2000hsm.googlegroups. com>,
Boltar <bo********@yahoo.co.ukwrote:
>
Chris Dollin wrote:
>* people learning to find things out for themselves using the search
tools available helps them and the communities they partake in.

If a newsgroup dedicated to C isn't an online community I'm not sure
what is.
So comp.lang.c is an online community, and therefore you shouldn't
bother to do something that helps both you and CLC? You might want to
review your logic there.

>* people answering the simpler questions for themselves means that
newsgroups have more resources available for answering the
/complicated/ questions.

The days of 9600 baud modems being clogged up downloading posts have
thankfully departed.
Yes. That means it's now trivial to download more news articles than
anybody has the time or energy to read and reply to. How, exactly,
does this give us more resources to waste on answering simple questions
that you'd find your answer to more quickly and more easily in a
reference manual?

>* being able to support a question with "I tried looking for X and
only got Y" or "I tried X and got different mysterious result Z"
shows willing and provides extra context and evidence for an answer.

This isn't school, showing willing is irrelevant.
Most people are rather more likely to put time and energy into offering
help if it looks like that help will have some benefit. Demonstrating
that you're unwilling to put any energy into it on your side is a
pretty good clue that it's not worth our resources either.

>OK, so that's three reasons.

3 not very good ones.
*plonk*

dave

Nov 12 '07 #11
Boltar wrote, On 12/11/07 20:13:
Chris Dollin wrote:
>* people learning to find things out for themselves using the search
tools available helps them and the communities they partake in.

If a newsgroup dedicated to C isn't an online community I'm not sure
what is.
Yes, so researching things yourself will help you and this community.
>* people answering the simpler questions for themselves means that
newsgroups have more resources available for answering the
/complicated/ questions.

The days of 9600 baud modems being clogged up downloading posts have
thankfully departed.
Irrelevant. The important resource is the people and their time, and
that is limited.
>* being able to support a question with "I tried looking for X and
only got Y" or "I tried X and got different mysterious result Z"
shows willing and provides extra context and evidence for an answer.

This isn't school, showing willing is irrelevant.
Yes, it isn't a school so we are not being paid to teach you.
>OK, so that's three reasons.

3 not very good ones.
No, three good reasons if you took the time to understand them.

A forth good reason is that you are more likely to get help from the
most knowledgeable if you put in some effort yourself.
--
Flash Gordon
Nov 12 '07 #12
On Nov 12, 9:12 pm, Flash Gordon <s...@flash-gordon.me.ukwrote:
Irrelevant. The important resource is the people and their time, and
that is limited.
Don't talk such rubbish. If people had work to do they wouldn't be on
here browsing the posts in the first place.
Yes, it isn't a school so we are not being paid to teach you.
Not are you being paid to post non-replies. If you have nothing to
say , say nothing.

B2003
Nov 12 '07 #13
Boltar said:

<snip>
The guy was just asking a question. Isn't that the whole point of
these groups?
No. The Q&A aspect of newsgroups is incidental to their original purpose,
which was to exchange and discuss *news* - hence the name "newsgroup".
Nevertheless, the Q&A serves a useful purpose - that of stimulating
informative discussion - and so it is not only tolerated but encouraged.
But it is certainly not the whole point of the groups.

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Nov 12 '07 #14
Boltar said:
On Nov 12, 9:12 pm, Flash Gordon <s...@flash-gordon.me.ukwrote:
>Irrelevant. The important resource is the people and their time, and
that is limited.

Don't talk such rubbish. If people had work to do they wouldn't be on
here browsing the posts in the first place.
>Yes, it isn't a school so we are not being paid to teach you.

Not are you being paid to post non-replies. If you have nothing to
say , say nothing.
Physician, heal thyself. So far, you have had nothing whatsoever to say
about C in this thread or in any other recent thread. Indeed, a Web search
of Google's archives reveals only two articles from you that were posted
before today, both on January 5th, one of which contains an incorrect
claim about C and the other of which contains an acknowledgement that the
claim was incorrect.

If you have nothing to say...

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Nov 12 '07 #15
Boltar wrote:
This isn't school, showing willing is irrelevant.
No, its real life. Being sociable is rewarded. Being petulant and lazy
is dealt with accordingly.

Nov 12 '07 #16
Aditya wrote:
Hi
I am using a line of as
char recvedValues[ROWS][COLUMNS] = {'\0'};
in my code. I get a warning as near initialization for
recvedValues[0].

You get a warning that the error is near the place where you initialise
recvedValues[]. Hence it is "near initialisation for..."
Nov 12 '07 #17
Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalidwrote:
Keith Thompson said:
In fact, this:
{ 0 }
can be used as an initializer for *any* type (but gcc
will warn about it).

Yes, and I dearly wish it wouldn't. The construct is well-
defined,
True.
well-known,
Debatable (though I won't ;-)
and idiomatic.
The author of the warning probably went to the Heathfield
school of C and took the adage 'all variables must be
explicitly initialised' a bit too literally. :-)
To warn against it is ludicrous (but of course
perfectly legal).
Note that (*s++ = *d++) is no less well defined, well-known,
and idiomatic, but it is also given a warning by gcc.

Yet another reason not to get pre-occupied with warnings,
or 'style' as measure of correctness (or incorrectness.)

--
Peter

Nov 13 '07 #18
Boltar wrote:
Chris Dollin wrote:
>* people learning to find things out for themselves using the search
tools available helps them and the communities they partake in.

If a newsgroup dedicated to C isn't an online community I'm not sure
what is.
I believe it is, and /hence/ that people learning how to find things out
for themselves using the search tools available helps that community.

I don't see the point of your intended rebuttal.
>* people answering the simpler questions for themselves means that
newsgroups have more resources available for answering the
/complicated/ questions.

The days of 9600 baud modems being clogged up downloading posts have
thankfully departed.
And are also irrelevant, because the resources I refer to centre on
the /people/.
>* being able to support a question with "I tried looking for X and
only got Y" or "I tried X and got different mysterious result Z"
shows willing and provides extra context and evidence for an answer.

This isn't school, showing willing is irrelevant.
I believe you are mistaken in the consequent.
>OK, so that's three reasons.

3 not very good ones.
Opinions may differ.

--
Chris "diversity" Dollin

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

Nov 13 '07 #19
On Nov 12, 10:29 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalidwrote:
Physician, heal thyself. So far, you have had nothing whatsoever to say
about C in this thread or in any other recent thread. Indeed, a Web search
of Google's archives reveals only two articles from you that were posted
before today, both on January 5th, one of which contains an incorrect
claim about C and the other of which contains an acknowledgement that the
claim was incorrect.
I would suggest you learn to use Google properly, its really not
difficult. Unless you never actually bothered.

Try this:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....a95b74f04969ee

B2003

Nov 13 '07 #20
On Nov 13, 8:59 am, Chris Dollin <chris.dol...@hp.comwrote:
No. The point of a newsgroup is /communication/, which is not helped
by the asking of questions for which answers are /already available/
for a modest fee.
In that case the purpose of this newsgroup is null and void , since by
definition the solution to all C issues is available elsewhere.

B2003
Nov 13 '07 #21
Boltar said:
On Nov 12, 10:29 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>Physician, heal thyself. So far, you have had nothing whatsoever to say
about C in this thread or in any other recent thread. Indeed, a Web
search of Google's archives reveals only two articles from you that were
posted before today, both on January 5th, one of which contains an
incorrect claim about C and the other of which contains an
acknowledgement that the claim was incorrect.

I would suggest you learn to use Google properly, its really not
difficult. Unless you never actually bothered.

Try this:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp....a95b74f04969ee

Ho-hum - dated yesterday, yes... okay, it was outside *this* thread, fair
point... and yes, you're begging for C help, so yes, that's C-related all
right... but really, I see nothing there to change my view significantly.
Your contributions to this group remain at the microscopic level. When
you've spent a few years giving high-quality C help here, maybe I'll be
interested in your views on the dynamics of comp.lang.c - but until then,
<yawn>.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Nov 13 '07 #22
Boltar said:
On Nov 13, 8:59 am, Chris Dollin <chris.dol...@hp.comwrote:
>No. The point of a newsgroup is /communication/, which is not helped
by the asking of questions for which answers are /already available/
for a modest fee.

In that case the purpose of this newsgroup is null and void , since by
definition the solution to all C issues is available elsewhere.
Consider this: "Hi folks, I'm stuck. My program works fine on the PC, but
when I try to run it on the IBM, I'm getting strange results. I've
narrowed the problem down to one particular function - just five lines! -
but I can't see what's wrong with it. In any case, it's straight out of a
C book, so it must be right, mustn't it? Also, I've checked the FAQ, but I
couldn't find anything relevant. Here's the function... and here's a
ten-line test driver that reproduces the problem."

Here is someone who has encountered a C problem, and tackled it
intelligently. She has tried to zero in on the problem, and has managed to
identify one small function that isn't working as she expects. There is no
point in her looking in her C book, since the code comes *out* of her C
book! She has checked the FAQ. We suspect she's spent a fair amount of
time trying to puzzle this out for herself. That in itself is a good sign,
as it helps her to develop her independence. But it was all to no avail.
So she has posted her problem to Usenet, along with the smallest possible
program that reproduces her problem. And in fact the chances are good that
several people here would be able to guess fairly accurately at what's
wrong, *even without looking at the code*! And *with* the code, it'd be a
cinch. It wouldn't take more than a minute to answer.

That example was actually fictional. Let me contrast it with a real-world
example of the kind we often get here. This is for real, I assure you. It
was posted on 9 April 2006, and I've marked it off with +++++++s to act as
quote markers:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hey Frnds can anyone help me in this

i need a program in 'c'

PROGRAM to print NxN Matrix
9 1 8 1 2 3
2 7 3 as 4 5 6
6 4 5 7 8 9

in sorted form

please send me as soon as u can very very very urgent....
plz send me

Thanks in Advance...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I don't know about you, but I'm not fooled by the "please", or even the
"plz". This person has shown no sign whatsoever of attempting to solve his
or her own problem. If he or she can't be bothered to have a go at it, why
should we?

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Nov 13 '07 #23
On Nov 13, 10:41 am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalidwrote:
That example was actually fictional. Let me contrast it with a real-world
example of the kind we often get here. This is for real, I assure you. It
was posted on 9 April 2006, and I've marked it off with +++++++s to act as
quote markers:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hey Frnds can anyone help me in this

i need a program in 'c'

PROGRAM to print NxN Matrix
9 1 8 1 2 3
2 7 3 as 4 5 6
6 4 5 7 8 9

in sorted form

please send me as soon as u can very very very urgent....
plz send me

Thanks in Advance...
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I don't know about you, but I'm not fooled by the "please", or even the
"plz". This person has shown no sign whatsoever of attempting to solve his
or her own problem.
I would imagine his problem is getting a passing grade in
an assignment. Since his approach has a slight probability
of succeeding (meaning someone may write his programme for
him and we've seen it happen) I would say he has exhibited
some sign of attempting to solve his problem ;-)

Nov 13 '07 #24
On Nov 12, 11:51 am, Mark Bluemel <mark_blue...@pobox.comwrote:
Aditya wrote:
Hi
I am using a line of as
char recvedValues[ROWS][COLUMNS] = {'\0'};
in my code. I get a warning as near initialization for
recvedValues[0].
I am using gcc 3.4
Can anybody please explain the meaning.

Google for it... Or RTFM perhaps.
Perhaps he did Google for it. I did and the only match I
get is this thread. As for the manual does the GCC manual
explain the rationale for warnings ? As a matter of interest
does any compiler manual do that ?

Nov 13 '07 #25
On 12 Nov, 11:28, Aditya <adityagupta...@gmail.comwrote:
I am using a line of as
char recvedValues[ROWS][COLUMNS] = {'\0'};
in my code. I get a warning as near initialization for
recvedValues[0].
I am using gcc 3.4
Can anybody please explain the meaning.
"near initialisation" means you *almost* initialised it.
Consider "near death experience" etc.
--
Nick Keighley

Nov 13 '07 #26
Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
On Nov 12, 11:51 am, Mark Bluemel <mark_blue...@pobox.comwrote:
>Aditya wrote:
>>Hi
I am using a line of as
char recvedValues[ROWS][COLUMNS] = {'\0'};
in my code. I get a warning as near initialization for
recvedValues[0].
I am using gcc 3.4
Can anybody please explain the meaning.
Google for it... Or RTFM perhaps.

Perhaps he did Google for it. I did and the only match I
get is this thread.
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22...tialization%22

There are answers to the original question in the first page of
results.

I tend not to recommend Googling without trying it and proving
to my own satisfaction that it would be of some benefit.

It doesn't explain the real warning, but the poster didn't ask
about the real warning...
As for the manual does the GCC manual
explain the rationale for warnings ? As a matter of interest
does any compiler manual do that ?
If the original poster wants to discuss specifics about gcc,
I would suggest a different newsgroup.
Nov 13 '07 #27
Chris Dollin <ch**********@hp.comwrites:
Boltar wrote:
>On Nov 12, 11:51 am, Mark Bluemel <mark_blue...@pobox.comwrote:
>>Aditya wrote:
Hi
I am using a line of as
char recvedValues[ROWS][COLUMNS] = {'\0'};
in my code. I get a warning as near initialization for
recvedValues[0].
I am using gcc 3.4
Can anybody please explain the meaning.

Google for it... Or RTFM perhaps.

Why do people like you sit on a question and answer group only to
basically tell people to get lost when they ask a question?

Because newsgroups shouldn't be the /first/ port-of-call when
one needs a question answered?
Maybe. Maybe not. But the simple fact is that I have seen nothing
answered here which was not already in google. Google can throw up too
many alternatives and its nice to engage in a thread.

Mark Blumel has a history of telling people to RTFM : maybe he should
reconsider just why he is in this NG.
>
>The mentality of people like you could provide a psychologist with
a whole thesis.

/Anyone's/ mentality would provide material for a thousand theses.
Nov 13 '07 #28
Boltar <bo********@yahoo.co.ukwrites:
On Nov 12, 9:12 pm, Flash Gordon <s...@flash-gordon.me.ukwrote:
>Irrelevant. The important resource is the people and their time, and
that is limited.

Don't talk such rubbish. If people had work to do they wouldn't be on
here browsing the posts in the first place.
>Yes, it isn't a school so we are not being paid to teach you.

Not are you being paid to post non-replies. If you have nothing to
say , say nothing.

B2003
Welcome to CLC. There is a small but vocal group think they own the
group. This thread has, however, shocked even me. I have no idea just
who the hell this "we" is that "isn't being paid to help". It's
embarassing to read this tripe. They moan about people doing their own
research and "RTFM" (a Bluemel speciality) yet seem to have plenty of
time to come wading in, one and all, to remind someone that malloc
doesn't need a cast.... go figure.

Nov 13 '07 #29
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrites:
Boltar wrote:
>This isn't school, showing willing is irrelevant.

No, its real life. Being sociable is rewarded. Being petulant and lazy
is dealt with accordingly.
Can you hear yourself?
Nov 13 '07 #30
Chris Dollin wrote:
Richard wrote:
>Yet these resources have plenty of time to tell people to RTFM.

And to offer help.
The two things are not mutually exclusive. In many cases, the original
poster will gain more by learning how to solve his/her problem than by
having someone-else solve it for him/her.

--
Give a man a match and he's warm for a day; set fire to him and he's
warm for the rest of his life. --Terry Pratchett
Nov 13 '07 #31
Mark Bluemel <ma**********@pobox.comwrites:
Chris Dollin wrote:
>Richard wrote:
>>Yet these resources have plenty of time to tell people to RTFM.

And to offer help.

The two things are not mutually exclusive. In many cases, the original
poster will gain more by learning how to solve his/her problem than by
having someone-else solve it for him/her.
This is a C group. Not a platform for your own brand of "how to learn".
Coming here IS RTFM for goodness sake.

If you are going to RTFM people and tell them to "try and work it out
for themselves" then you should quit helping here and take a job as a
primary school teacher.

People come here for help with C issues.

If you think its already covered extensively elsewhere and want to help
rather than to preen, then do what I and others do and google up the
best resource for that issue and post that as a reply? Don't want to do
that? Don#t reply. No one is interested in whether you personally want
or do not want to help. Others will if you do not.

It's also, unsurprisingly, amazing how many people learn by example.
Post a link from google and people get the idea quite quickly.

Nov 13 '07 #32
In article <u5************@news.individual.net>,
Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrote:
....
>>Name one question that has been asked here recently which did not have
an answer in google or the standard.
I've shown time and time again that every single question that could be
asked here is either:
1) OT
or 2) Answered in the standard (this by definition, since if it
isn't in the standard, it is OT)

Note that the one area of wiggle-room is the area of
"language-lawyering", where you discuss whether or not the standard
means what it says. This is very similar to real life lawyering, and
shares the attribute that while being fascinating to those in the
"in-crowd", is utterly boring and irrelevant to sensible people.

Nov 13 '07 #33
Chris Dollin <ch**********@hp.comwrites:
Richard wrote:
>>
You have no argument. This is a help group. People come here for help.
If the argument is that the "answer is already out there" then you might
as well close the group.

The argument is that /some/ answers are already out there, not that /all/
of them are, and that helping is /more effective all round/ if people
take the trouble to look /first/ and newsgroup afterwards [if looking
didn't help].

Put bluntly (which is really the only way I know), people who aren't
prepared to look first aren't worth helping. People who don't /know/
Coming here is looking. But looking to converse. There are many
resources out there which are plain wrong.
Nov 13 '07 #34
In article <zM******************************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
....
>Physician, heal thyself. So far, you have had nothing whatsoever to say
about C in this thread or in any other recent thread. Indeed, a Web search
of Google's archives reveals only two articles from you that were posted
before today, both on January 5th, one of which contains an incorrect
claim about C and the other of which contains an acknowledgement that the
claim was incorrect.

If you have nothing to say...
Can you say "infinite redux" ???

Nov 13 '07 #35
In article <vK******************************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
....
>Ho-hum - dated yesterday, yes... okay, it was outside *this* thread, fair
point... and yes, you're begging for C help, so yes, that's C-related all
right... but really, I see nothing there to change my view significantly.
Your contributions to this group remain at the microscopic level. When
you've spent a few years giving high-quality C help here, maybe I'll be
interested in your views on the dynamics of comp.lang.c - but until then,
<yawn>.
Oh, the irony...

Tears to my eyes.

Nov 13 '07 #36
ga*****@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
In article <vK******************************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
...
>>Ho-hum - dated yesterday, yes... okay, it was outside *this* thread, fair
point... and yes, you're begging for C help, so yes, that's C-related all
right... but really, I see nothing there to change my view significantly.
Your contributions to this group remain at the microscopic level. When
you've spent a few years giving high-quality C help here, maybe I'll be
interested in your views on the dynamics of comp.lang.c - but until then,
<yawn>.

Oh, the irony...

Tears to my eyes.
Playing the "length of service" card again I see. Ironic considering a
couple of the clique now appear to think helping others is now beneath
them unless the poster has a stamped certificate from Google
guaranteeing that they had first done their due diligence before taxing
the likes of Mr mighty intellect.

Nov 13 '07 #37
Richard wrote:
Playing the "length of service" card again I see. Ironic considering a
couple of the clique now appear to think helping others is now beneath
them unless the poster has a stamped certificate from Google
guaranteeing that they had first done their due diligence before taxing
the likes of Mr mighty intellect.
I trust that's not intended to be a representation of my position.

--
Chris "a mis is as good as a mile" Dollin

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

Nov 13 '07 #38
In article <8h************@news.individual.net>,
Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrote:
>ga*****@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
>In article <vK******************************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
...
>>>Ho-hum - dated yesterday, yes... okay, it was outside *this* thread, fair
point... and yes, you're begging for C help, so yes, that's C-related all
right... but really, I see nothing there to change my view significantly.
Your contributions to this group remain at the microscopic level. When
you've spent a few years giving high-quality C help here, maybe I'll be
interested in your views on the dynamics of comp.lang.c - but until then,
<yawn>.

Oh, the irony...

Tears to my eyes.

Playing the "length of service" card again I see. Ironic considering a
couple of the clique now appear to think helping others is now beneath
them unless the poster has a stamped certificate from Google
guaranteeing that they had first done their due diligence before taxing
the likes of Mr mighty intellect.
So true. So true.

Nov 13 '07 #39
In article <fh**********@tadcaster.hpl.hp.com>,
Chris Dollin <ch**********@hp.comwrote:
>Richard wrote:
>Playing the "length of service" card again I see. Ironic considering a
couple of the clique now appear to think helping others is now beneath
them unless the poster has a stamped certificate from Google
guaranteeing that they had first done their due diligence before taxing
the likes of Mr mighty intellect.

I trust that's not intended to be a representation of my position.
I think it is pretty clear who we are discussing here.

Nov 13 '07 #40
Chris Dollin <ch**********@hp.comwrites:
Richard wrote:
>Playing the "length of service" card again I see. Ironic considering a
couple of the clique now appear to think helping others is now beneath
them unless the poster has a stamped certificate from Google
guaranteeing that they had first done their due diligence before taxing
the likes of Mr mighty intellect.

I trust that's not intended to be a representation of my position.
No. But it's not so far off since in the other thread you are suggesting
that people should do their own work before coming here. My counterpoint
is that coming here is doing just that work but involving a more human
dialogue. You are always polite and courteous and don't seek to confuse
through almost purposeful obfuscation of simple enough facts about the C
language. Some do.

Nov 13 '07 #41
Chris Dollin said:
Richard wrote:
>Playing the "length of service" card again I see. Ironic considering a
couple of the clique now appear to think helping others is now beneath
them unless the poster has a stamped certificate from Google
guaranteeing that they had first done their due diligence before taxing
the likes of Mr mighty intellect.

I trust that's not intended to be a representation of my position.
Chris, he's a troll. You know this. What did you expect, objectivity?

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Nov 13 '07 #42
Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrites:
[...]
Mark Blumel has a history of telling people to RTFM : maybe he should
reconsider just why he is in this NG.
Why are *you* in this newsgroup? The vast majority of your postings
are complaints about other posters.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Looking for software development work in the San Diego area.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Nov 13 '07 #43
Keith Thompson said:
Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrites:
[...]
>Mark Blumel has a history of telling people to RTFM : maybe he should
reconsider just why he is in this NG.

Why are *you* in this newsgroup?
Because he's a troll?
The vast majority of your postings are complaints about other posters.
Logic doesn't seem to work very well on trolls.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Nov 13 '07 #44
Original article:
Aditya wrote:
I am using a line of as
char recvedValues[ROWS][COLUMNS] = {'\0'};
in my code. I get a warning as near initialization for
recvedValues[0].
I am using gcc 3.4
Can anybody please explain the meaning.
On Nov 12, 11:51 am, Mark Bluemel <mark_blue...@pobox.comwrote:
>
Google for it... Or RTFM perhaps.
In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.orgKeith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrites:
....
Googling for the actual message, rather than for a paraphrase of it,
might have been more successful. The phrase "near initialization", as
it turns out, isn't a description of the problem, just of where in the
code the problem occurs. The OP managed to give us the piece of the
puzzle that mattered least.
I think it is a combination of being not very familiar with English and
bad formatting of the warning messages from gcc. If you look at the
error messages, it appears that gcc is issuing two warnings. One about
there not being enough braces to the taste of gcc, and the other as
quoted above. Somebody who does not see that both warnings are actually
a single warning can easily get confused. I think the error is on gcc's
end by prefixing the second message also with the string "warning".
#define ROWS 3
#define COLUMNS 3
char recvedValues[ROWS][COLUMNS] = {'\0'};

with "gcc -Wall" and got this:

c.c:3: warning: missing braces around initializer
c.c:3: warning: (near initialization for 'recvedValues[0]')
So, why is the second message *also* prefixed as it is? It should really
not be prefixed as it is actually a continuation of the first line.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
Nov 14 '07 #45
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Chris Dollin said:
>Richard wrote:
>>Playing the "length of service" card again I see. Ironic considering a
couple of the clique now appear to think helping others is now beneath
them unless the poster has a stamped certificate from Google
guaranteeing that they had first done their due diligence before taxing
the likes of Mr mighty intellect.

I trust that's not intended to be a representation of my position.

Chris, he's a troll. You know this. What did you expect, objectivity?
At this time, I don't believe he's a troll. (Being an argumentative bagrag
doesn't make him a troll; otherwise, for example, I'd qualify.)

--
Chris "thresholds" Dollin

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

Nov 14 '07 #46
Chris Dollin <ch**********@hp.comwrites:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>Chris Dollin said:
>>Richard wrote:

Playing the "length of service" card again I see. Ironic considering a
couple of the clique now appear to think helping others is now beneath
them unless the poster has a stamped certificate from Google
guaranteeing that they had first done their due diligence before taxing
the likes of Mr mighty intellect.

I trust that's not intended to be a representation of my position.

Chris, he's a troll. You know this. What did you expect, objectivity?

At this time, I don't believe he's a troll. (Being an argumentative bagrag
doesn't make him a troll; otherwise, for example, I'd qualify.)
I am not a troll. I simply do not like Heathfield's modus operandus, his
attempts at wordy obfuscation, his constant attempts to lambast others
such as Jacob nor his self obsessed persona.

That is not being a troll. But Mr Heathfield will believe that since he
believes he was appointed by him on high to spread the good word. I find
it depressing that a couple of regulars have seen fit to emulate his
flowery prose and general disdain for anyone that doesn't see it his
way.

And it's a shame because he is, without a doubt, a knowledgeable person
as far as the standard goes. But any man who can post here that there
is "no such thing as global variables in C" ought to reconsider his
position as a teacher/guru in my opinion.

"Indeed".
Nov 14 '07 #47
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:36:32 +0000, Chris Dollin <ch**********@hp.com>
wrote:
>Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
Chris, he's a troll. You know this. What did you expect, objectivity?

At this time, I don't believe he's a troll. (Being an argumentative bagrag
doesn't make him a troll; otherwise, for example, I'd qualify.)
When was the last time he posted signal rather than noise? He's a
troll, and he lives in a twit-filter.
--
PGP key ID 0xEB7180EC
Nov 14 '07 #48
Richard wrote:
I simply do not like [his] modus operandus [...]
Nitpick. It's "modus operandi".
Nov 14 '07 #49
Keith Willis <me@privacy.netwrites:
On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 08:36:32 +0000, Chris Dollin <ch**********@hp.com>
wrote:
>>Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>
Chris, he's a troll. You know this. What did you expect, objectivity?

At this time, I don't believe he's a troll. (Being an argumentative bagrag
doesn't make him a troll; otherwise, for example, I'd qualify.)

When was the last time he posted signal rather than noise? He's a
troll, and he lives in a twit-filter.
Many times. And you might be surprised at just what S/N exists for
others we are discussing here.

Nov 14 '07 #50

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.