468,463 Members | 1,910 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 468,463 developers. It's quick & easy.

Exceptions in C/C++

Hello,

I have question concerning such code:

__try
{
...
} __except(EXCEPTION_EXECUTE_HANDLER)
{
printf("Exception code: %.8x\n", GetExceptionCode());
}
Is C related code? Or maybe C++?

opexoc
Dec 7 '07 #1
142 3389
op****@gmail.com wrote:
Hello,

I have question concerning such code:

__try
{
...
} __except(EXCEPTION_EXECUTE_HANDLER)
{
printf("Exception code: %.8x\n", GetExceptionCode());
}
Is C related code? Or maybe C++?
It's not ISO C, but Microsoft specific C, see their MSDN doc.

--
Tor <bw****@wvtqvm.vw | tr i-za-h a-z>
Dec 7 '07 #2
So if I want to use exceptions catching in dev-cpp in C code then what
should I do?

On 7 Gru, 01:58, Tor Rustad <tor_rus...@hotmail.comwrote:
>
It's not ISO C, but Microsoft specific C, see their MSDN doc.

Dec 7 '07 #3
op****@gmail.com wrote:
So if I want to use exceptions catching in dev-cpp in C code then what
should I do?

On 7 Gru, 01:58, Tor Rustad <tor_rus...@hotmail.comwrote:
>It's not ISO C, but Microsoft specific C, see their MSDN doc.

If you use the lcc-win compiler you can use the
__try/__except construct.

URL below

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Dec 7 '07 #4
On 7 Gru, 14:59, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.comwrote:
ope...@gmail.com wrote:
So if I want to use exceptions catching in dev-cpp in C code then what
should I do?
On 7 Gru, 01:58, Tor Rustad <tor_rus...@hotmail.comwrote:
It's not ISO C, but Microsoft specific C, see their MSDN doc.

If you use the lcc-win compiler you can use the
__try/__except construct.
Ok but dec-cpp has any construct which is to catching exception for C
language?

Dec 7 '07 #5
On Dec 7, 1:59 pm, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.comwrote:
ope...@gmail.com wrote:
So if I want to use exceptions catching in dev-cpp in C code then what
should I do?
On 7 Gru, 01:58, Tor Rustad <tor_rus...@hotmail.comwrote:
It's not ISO C, but Microsoft specific C, see their MSDN doc.

If you use the lcc-win compiler you can use the
__try/__except construct.

URL below
Rather than using extensions that tie your code to a particular
compiler and platform, why not use the perfectly good exception-
handling features already present in standard C, namely setjmp()/
longjmp()?
>
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatiquehttp://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Dec 7 '07 #6
op****@gmail.com wrote:
On 7 Gru, 14:59, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.comwrote:
>ope...@gmail.com wrote:
>>So if I want to use exceptions catching in dev-cpp in C code then what
should I do?
On 7 Gru, 01:58, Tor Rustad <tor_rus...@hotmail.comwrote:
It's not ISO C, but Microsoft specific C, see their MSDN doc.
If you use the lcc-win compiler you can use the
__try/__except construct.

Ok but dec-cpp has any construct which is to catching exception for C
language?
dev-cpp is an IDE. The compiler used is gcc in its "mingw" incarnation.
As fas as I know there isn't anything like that in gcc.

Therefore is not there for devcpp
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Dec 7 '07 #7
Fr************@googlemail.com wrote:
>
Rather than using extensions that tie your code to a particular
compiler and platform, why not use the perfectly good exception-
handling features already present in standard C, namely setjmp()/
longjmp()?
because they do not do what exceptions do.

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Dec 7 '07 #8
In article <24**********************************@l1g2000hsa.g ooglegroups.com>,
<Fr************@googlemail.comwrote:
>Rather than using extensions that tie your code to a particular
compiler and platform, why not use the perfectly good exception-
handling features already present in standard C, namely setjmp()/
longjmp()?
setjmp and longjmp are not exactly "perfectly good exception-handling
features"; setjmp is merely a restricted COME FROM, and longjmp marks
acceptable targets for it.

It's possible to build a perfectly good exception-handling system on
top of setjmp/longjmp, but it does have to be built.
dave

Dec 7 '07 #9
In article <fj**********@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>,
<dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca.invalidwrote:
>setjmp and longjmp are not exactly "perfectly good exception-handling
features"; setjmp is merely a restricted COME FROM, and longjmp marks
acceptable targets for it.
The whole point of COME FROM is that the jumped-from location isn't
marked.

-- Richard
--
:wq
Dec 7 '07 #10
dev-cpp is an IDE. The compiler used is gcc in its "mingw" incarnation.
As fas as I know there isn't anything like that in gcc.

Therefore is not there for devcpp
So it is not possible to use exceptions catching in dev-cpp?

opexoc
Dec 7 '07 #11
op****@gmail.com wrote:
>dev-cpp is an IDE. The compiler used is gcc in its "mingw" incarnation.
As fas as I know there isn't anything like that in gcc.

Therefore is not there for devcpp

So it is not possible to use exceptions catching in dev-cpp?
Why don't you either
a) Read the Manual; or
b) ask in a dev-cpp newsgroup, mailing list etc etc?

This is NOT the right place.
--
Mark McIntyre

CLC FAQ <http://c-faq.com/>
CLC readme: <http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
Dec 7 '07 #12
op****@gmail.com wrote:
>dev-cpp is an IDE. The compiler used is gcc in its "mingw" incarnation.
As fas as I know there isn't anything like that in gcc.

Therefore is not there for devcpp

So it is not possible to use exceptions catching in dev-cpp?

opexoc

I do not think so
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Dec 7 '07 #13
In article <fj***********@pc-news.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
Richard Tobin <ri*****@cogsci.ed.ac.ukwrote:
>In article <fj**********@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>,
<dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca.invalidwrote:
>>setjmp and longjmp are not exactly "perfectly good exception-handling
features"; setjmp is merely a restricted COME FROM, and longjmp marks
acceptable targets for it.

The whole point of COME FROM is that the jumped-from location isn't
marked.
No, that was a side goal of the original implementation.
The point of COME FROM is that the destination of a jump (the location
of the COME FROM) can be changed on the fly for a particular origin
(target of the COME FROM); setjmp/longjmp require that the source and
destination be marked (and the longjmp needs to be wrapped in a test if
you want it to not jump until a setjmp has asked to COME FROM it), but
which setjmp a longjmp jumps to can be dynamically modified.
dave

Dec 8 '07 #14
jacob navia wrote:
Fr************@googlemail.com wrote:
>Rather than using extensions that tie your code to a particular
compiler and platform, why not use the perfectly good exception-
handling features already present in standard C, namely setjmp()/
longjmp()?

because they do not do what exceptions do.
Aha. Now you may be beginning to see why exceptions (as built into
the language) are off-topic on c.l.c. Hint: try c.l.c++, which
handles a language with such a feature.

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.

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

Dec 8 '07 #15

<op****@gmail.comwrote in message
>
>dev-cpp is an IDE. The compiler used is gcc in its "mingw" incarnation.
As fas as I know there isn't anything like that in gcc.

Therefore is not there for devcpp

So it is not possible to use exceptions catching in dev-cpp?
try ... catch ... throw is a fairly common extension that both lcc-win and
Microsft's compiler seem to support. Opinions will differ on whether it is a
good idea.
One indisputable disadvantage is that you then cannot port code to any
arbitrary C platform. Though I've got considerable experience in C on a wide
variety of compilers and targets, I couldn't possibly list the
characteristics of each and every one on the market.

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

Dec 8 '07 #16
In article <fj**********@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>,
<dj******@csclub.uwaterloo.ca.invalidwrote:
>>The whole point of COME FROM is that the jumped-from location isn't
marked.
>No, that was a side goal of the original implementation.
The point of COME FROM is that the destination of a jump (the location
of the COME FROM) can be changed on the fly for a particular origin
(target of the COME FROM); setjmp/longjmp require that the source and
destination be marked (and the longjmp needs to be wrapped in a test if
you want it to not jump until a setjmp has asked to COME FROM it), but
which setjmp a longjmp jumps to can be dynamically modified.
What you are describing seems more like ASSIGNED GO TO (provided in C
by a GNU extension). In all forms of GO TO, including longjmp(), the
jump destination is specified at the jump source by an argument of the
GO TO. In COME FROM, the jump source is specified at the jump
destination by an argument of the COME FROM. With setjmp()/longjmp()
there is no way to set the jump source at the jump destination (ie the
setjmp()).

Variability of one end of the jump is an orthogonal feature provided
by ASSIGNED GO TO and ASSIGNED COME FROM. It's not the difference
between GO TO and COME FROM.

-- Richard

--
:wq
Dec 8 '07 #17
CBFalconer wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
>Fr************@googlemail.com wrote:
>>Rather than using extensions that tie your code to a particular
compiler and platform, why not use the perfectly good exception-
handling features already present in standard C, namely setjmp()/
longjmp()?
because they do not do what exceptions do.

Aha. Now you may be beginning to see why exceptions (as built into
the language) are off-topic on c.l.c. Hint: try c.l.c++, which
handles a language with such a feature.
It is not off topic. It is about exceptions in C.

Clear?

And if you do not like a subject, just skip it.

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Dec 8 '07 #18
jacob navia wrote, On 08/12/07 12:18:
CBFalconer wrote:
>jacob navia wrote:
>>Fr************@googlemail.com wrote:

Rather than using extensions that tie your code to a particular
compiler and platform, why not use the perfectly good exception-
handling features already present in standard C, namely setjmp()/
longjmp()?
because they do not do what exceptions do.

Aha. Now you may be beginning to see why exceptions (as built into
the language) are off-topic on c.l.c. Hint: try c.l.c++, which
handles a language with such a feature.

It is not off topic. It is about exceptions in C.

Clear?
OK, the answer is easy then, there aren't any.

The suggestion of trying C++ which *does* have exceptions was a sensible
one. The suggestion of asking somewhere where the compiler the OP was
interested in (which was not yours of MSVC++) was also sensible. The
suggestion of implementing something using setjmp/longjmp was sensible
since it allows staying with standard C (although it might not provide
the functionality wanted by the OP). Suggesting switching to a compiler
specific extension provided by a couple of other compilers does *not*
answer the OPs question.
And if you do not like a subject, just skip it.
If you don't like the subject of the group then just skip the group.
--
Flash Gordon
Dec 8 '07 #19
Flash Gordon wrote:
jacob navia wrote, On 08/12/07 12:18:
>CBFalconer wrote:
>>jacob navia wrote:
Fr************@googlemail.com wrote:

Rather than using extensions that tie your code to a particular
compiler and platform, why not use the perfectly good exception-
handling features already present in standard C, namely setjmp()/
longjmp()?
because they do not do what exceptions do.

Aha. Now you may be beginning to see why exceptions (as built into
the language) are off-topic on c.l.c. Hint: try c.l.c++, which
handles a language with such a feature.

It is not off topic. It is about exceptions in C.

Clear?

OK, the answer is easy then, there aren't any.

The suggestion of trying C++ which *does* have exceptions was a sensible
one. The suggestion of asking somewhere where the compiler the OP was
interested in (which was not yours of MSVC++) was also sensible. The
suggestion of implementing something using setjmp/longjmp was sensible
since it allows staying with standard C (although it might not provide
the functionality wanted by the OP). Suggesting switching to a compiler
specific extension provided by a couple of other compilers does *not*
answer the OPs question.
>And if you do not like a subject, just skip it.

If you don't like the subject of the group then just skip the group.
The subject of the group is C. Nowhere in the charter was mentioned
that it was just ISO C.

Microsoft, lcc-win, and other compilers under windows implement
__try/__except. And if you do not like it it is your problem, not
mine. It is a common extension under windows.

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Dec 8 '07 #20
jacob navia said:
Flash Gordon wrote:
>jacob navia wrote, On 08/12/07 12:18:
>>And if you do not like a subject, just skip it.

If you don't like the subject of the group then just skip the group.

The subject of the group is C.
Correct.
Nowhere in the charter was mentioned that it was just ISO C.
That's at least partly because there isn't a charter, as you have been told
many times. But it's also because, when C programmers subscribe to a C
group, it is not unreasonable of them to expect to be able to recognise
the language being discussed, and that means treading very carefully with
extensions. If "C" means "any language with a vaguely C-like syntax" or
"any program acceptable to any compiler that can compile C", then Fortran
and C++ become topical here. Is that what you want?

A few weeks ago the group discussed topicality and whether they would like
it to change, and the overwhelming majority stated that they wished the
group to continue to restrict itself to K&R C and the various ISO
standards. If you wanted to loosen up the topicality requirements of this
group, that would have been a great time to make yourself heard, but IIRC
you did not do so. Even if you had taken part, however, you would have
been in the minority (as was I).

--
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
Dec 8 '07 #21
jacob navia wrote:
CBFalconer wrote:
>jacob navia wrote:
>>Fr************@googlemail.com wrote:

Rather than using extensions that tie your code to a particular
compiler and platform, why not use the perfectly good exception-
handling features already present in standard C, namely setjmp()/
longjmp()?

because they do not do what exceptions do.

Aha. Now you may be beginning to see why exceptions (as built into
the language) are off-topic on c.l.c. Hint: try c.l.c++, which
handles a language with such a feature.

It is not off topic. It is about exceptions in C.
There are no such things as 'exceptions' in C. Thus off-topic.
See section 7.6.2 for the meaning of 'exception' in C.

... further annoying comments designed to start fights snipped ..

--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.

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

Dec 8 '07 #22
op****@gmail.com wrote:
>
On 7 Gru, 01:58, Tor Rustad <tor_rus...@hotmail.comwrote:
>It's not ISO C, but Microsoft specific C, see their MSDN doc.

So if I want to use exceptions catching in dev-cpp in C code then what
should I do?
If you are writing new code, it's better to avoid it and use standard C
methods for error handling.

If you are trying to compile some existing source, you could look into
an existing C library for ideas, see for example David R. Hanson CII
library, which came with his book "C Interfaces and Implementations".

My guess, is that it wouldn't be hard to rewrite the code.

--
Tor <bw****@wvtqvm.vw | tr i-za-h a-z>
Dec 9 '07 #23
jacob navia <ja***@nospam.comwrites:
[...]
The subject of the group is C. Nowhere in the charter was mentioned
that it was just ISO C.
[...]

This newsgroup has no charter.

I know you've been told that a number of times. Apparently you just
haven't been told *enough* times. Let me know how many times you need
to be told that this newsgroup has no charter before you believe it,
and I'll be glad to send you an e-mail message that repeats the
statement "comp.lang.c has no charter" that many itmes.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <ks***@mib.org>
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"
Dec 9 '07 #24
Keith Thompson wrote:
jacob navia <ja***@nospam.comwrites:
[...]
>The subject of the group is C. Nowhere in the charter was mentioned
that it was just ISO C.
[...]

This newsgroup has no charter.

I know you've been told that a number of times. Apparently you just
haven't been told *enough* times. Let me know how many times you need
to be told that this newsgroup has no charter before you believe it,
and I'll be glad to send you an e-mail message that repeats the
statement "comp.lang.c has no charter" that many itmes.
Newsgroups : net.news.group, net.lang.c
From : eagle!jerry
Date : Fri Oct 22 01:28:04 1982
Local : Ven 22 oct 1982 01:28
Subject : C language newsgroup started

My suggestion for a "C" newsgroup met with support and no
opposition so net.lang.c (note lower case) has been created.

It's purpose is to carry on discussion of C programming and
the C programming language. Appropriate topics are

Queries on how to write something in C
Queries about why some C code behaves the way it does
Suggestions for C modifications or extensions
C coding "tricks"
Compiler bugs
Availability of compilers
etc.

Jerry Schwarz
BTL -- Murray Hill
harpo!eagle!jerry

This is the charter as I have told you countless times.
Please tell me how many times you need yet.

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Dec 9 '07 #25
jacob navia said:
Keith Thompson wrote:
>jacob navia <ja***@nospam.comwrites:
[...]
>>The subject of the group is C. Nowhere in the charter was mentioned
that it was just ISO C.
[...]

This newsgroup has no charter.

I know you've been told that a number of times. Apparently you just
haven't been told *enough* times. Let me know how many times you need
to be told that this newsgroup has no charter before you believe it,
and I'll be glad to send you an e-mail message that repeats the
statement "comp.lang.c has no charter" that many itmes.

Newsgroups : net.news.group, net.lang.c
From : eagle!jerry
Refer to the discussion we had the last time you trotted this out.

<snip>
This is the charter as I have told you countless times.
No, it isn't, as we have told you countless times.

--
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
Dec 9 '07 #26
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrites:
jacob navia <ja***@nospam.comwrites:
[...]
>The subject of the group is C. Nowhere in the charter was mentioned
that it was just ISO C.
[...]

This newsgroup has no charter.

I know you've been told that a number of times. Apparently you just
haven't been told *enough* times. Let me know how many times you need
to be told that this newsgroup has no charter before you believe it,
and I'll be glad to send you an e-mail message that repeats the
statement "comp.lang.c has no charter" that many itmes.
The how come you and Heathfield seem to know so much about what can and
can not be posted? comp.lang.c. computers-language-c.

Some flexibility does no harm. It's why God gave us a brain and
newsreaders with "kill thread" functionality.

Dec 9 '07 #27
jacob navia wrote:
James Kuyper wrote:
>>
The message you cited doesn't even contain the word "charter".

It is *the* founding message of this group.
A Charter is not an email. It has a very specific meaning in usenet.

And even ignoring that, the first email in a discussion almost never
totally defines the outcome of that discussion.

I could send out an email today saying "hey, lets form a group to talk
about bladderworts and aardvarks", and after some discussion with my
peers we might decide to broaden scope to include all unusually-named
insectivores, or narrow it to only mobile ones.
I repeat:

<quote>
My suggestion for a "C" newsgroup met with support and no
opposition so net.lang.c (note lower case) has been created.
<end quote>
You keep digging this out like it was a formal proof. This proves that
net.lang.c was created. It does not define the topic. That nobody
objected to the creation of the group does not mean that the topic was
formally set at that point.

And by the way over two decades have expired since that mail. The topic
has been refined, updated and confirmed multiple times since then.

I apprecate that you don't like the topic, I appreciate that you are
offended by being told you're offtopic, and I appreciate that you want
to control the topic yourself. I also appreciate that you are probably
the most obsessed person here, and simply can't let go despite being
almost universally opposed by some of hte planet's foremost experts.

But frankly, nobody cares. If you're upset, tough.

Dec 9 '07 #28
James Kuyper wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
><quote>
My suggestion for a "C" newsgroup met with support and no
opposition so net.lang.c (note lower case) has been created.
<end quote>

It says "suggestion", "support", and "no opposition"; it does not say
"503 votes for, 0 votes against". He mentions no formal vote. You
mention no prior message establishing what it was they would have been
voting about; I presume you would have, if such a message had existed,
because it would have made a better argument for your point of view. It
sounds like a pretty informal process to me. You don't create a
newsgroup charter by a process that informal.
>At that time this was a formal process of creating a group.

At that time, there was no such thing as a newsgroup charter, which is
precisely why the message you cite doesn't qualify as one.
But there was a very informal process when somebody proposed
creating a group, and since this group existed BEFORE the
formal process was designed, it is perfectly correct to use
that message as the charter of this group.

And in ANY case, I see no mention anywhere that there was
a voting process that would have conferred Mr Heathfield any
authority in this group whatsoever!

(and all his friends)

He believes that he can always destroy threads discussing
changes in the language, proposals about improving this
or that inconsistency, etc with his eternal "off topic"
whining.

What is on topic or not is not for Mr Heathfield to decide

I repeat: he has NO AUTHORITY here, in any case no more than
anyone else.

And I repeat again:

I will go on trying to bring this changes into C, and I beleiev this
group is the correct forum, and if someone doesn't like that it can
always use a killfile.
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Dec 9 '07 #29
jacob navia wrote:
....
But there was a very informal process when somebody proposed
creating a group, and since this group existed BEFORE the
formal process was designed, it is perfectly correct to use
that message as the charter of this group.
No, the only correct thing to say is that is has no charter, only an
informal statement of purpose.
And in ANY case, I see no mention anywhere that there was
a voting process that would have conferred Mr Heathfield any
authority in this group whatsoever!
Agreed.
Dec 9 '07 #30
jacob navia <ja***@nospam.comwrites:
Mark McIntyre wrote:
>jacob navia wrote:
I apprecate that you don't like the topic, I appreciate that you are
offended by being told you're offtopic, and I appreciate that you
want to control the topic yourself. I also appreciate that you are
probably the most obsessed person here, and simply can't let go
despite being almost universally opposed by some of hte planet's
foremost experts.

"... the planet's formeots experts"

WOW

Well, after that page of self publicity I will zap
mind you?
Wow. I take it all back. He is also one of the planet's "formeots"
experts. Although what a formeot is any why we need experts on them is
another story. And why these formeot experts set the agenda in a C
newsgroup is quite beyond my understanding.

Dec 9 '07 #31
jacob navia wrote, On 09/12/07 17:39:

<snip>
And always refusing any discussion of the issues at hand. Even when
Heathfield himself says that one of the things that bothers him in C
is the lack of operator overloading, he refuses to engage in any
discussion about it where the ISSUES at hand would be discussed.
Well, the issue in this thread was firstly someone wanting to know if
__try was C or C++ and when what he could do in dev-cpp, not Visual
Studio or lcc-win or anything else, but dev-cpp to catch exceptions. So
you bringing up being able to use __try in lcc-win was YOU ignoring the
issue at hand.

In your rush to switch to discussing topicality you are failing to
address why lcc-win32 having a specific extension is relevent to the OP
who wants to use a different compiler.
--
Flash Gordon
Dec 9 '07 #32
On 9 Dec, 17:33, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.comwrote:
(re: Richard Heathfield)
He believes that he can always destroy threads discussing
changes in the language, proposals about improving this
or that inconsistency, etc with his eternal "off topic"
whining.

What is on topic or not is not for Mr Heathfield to decide

I repeat: he has NO AUTHORITY here, in any case no more than
anyone else.
This is technically correct. However, I believe Mr.
Heathfield has more reader's respect than
do you, and in that sense he realistically does
have more of an impact on the group. That may
be construed as more authority.
>
And I repeat again:

I will go on trying to bring this changes into C, and I beleiev this
group is the correct forum, and if someone doesn't like that it can
always use a killfile.
Just throwing in a data point: I agree with you
that there are quite a few people who annoyingly
throttle good discussions in the name of topicality
in a way that I think is inappropriate. However,
I also think that you often attempt to initiate
discussions that are in fact totally off topic
and appear to be nothing more than attempts
to support what appears to be your overly inflated
ego. In point of fact, I rarely read posts
with your name on them, because I for one
have grown tired of your ranting about the
wonderful extensions in lcc-win32, most of which
seem to me to be totally pointless. Also,
I'm pretty tired of your rants against RH.
(To be fair, I also am annoyed at his counter
rants, although I find myself in agreement
with him more often than with you, so I am
more tolerant of his.) Does this make me
his "friend" (a word which you seem to be using
in a derogatory way to describe mindless
followers of some cult personality) ? No,
it just means that he tends to post technical
details that I find interesting, whereas you
don't.

To summarize: most of the time you're hurting
your own case by being an annoying twit. I truly
don't mean this as an insult, and I don't want
to offend you, but...get a clue.
Dec 9 '07 #33
William Pursell <bi**********@gmail.comwrites:
On 9 Dec, 17:33, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.comwrote:
(re: Richard Heathfield)
>He believes that he can always destroy threads discussing
changes in the language, proposals about improving this
or that inconsistency, etc with his eternal "off topic"
whining.

What is on topic or not is not for Mr Heathfield to decide

I repeat: he has NO AUTHORITY here, in any case no more than
anyone else.

This is technically correct. However, I believe Mr.
Well, there you go then. Technically correct.
Heathfield has more reader's respect than
do you, and in that sense he realistically does
have more of an impact on the group. That may
be construed as more authority.
Not in the slightest. This is a public newsgroup and Heathfield has no
more sway than the worst spammer. Yes he can choose what he wishes to
help with but to berate others for helping in issues HE construes to be
off topic is ridiculous. In many cases there are no other suitable news
groups and here is a collection of decent C programmers. If you want to
help - help. If not, then don't. Simple enough really. I am not
advocating anarchy. See later.
>
>>
And I repeat again:

I will go on trying to bring this changes into C, and I beleiev this
group is the correct forum, and if someone doesn't like that it can
always use a killfile.

Just throwing in a data point: I agree with you
that there are quite a few people who annoyingly
throttle good discussions in the name of topicality
in a way that I think is inappropriate.
And *that* is the discussion at hand. Nothing more. nothing
less. Heathfield is purposely obstructive and diversive when anything
is asked outside of his own comfort zone: example? Look how he purposely
confused the thread decently concerning floating point rounding. He
blatantly used his inability or refusal to download a C90 compiler to
project Jacob's code as uncompilable and incorrect. He was seen through
by a few here and I believe made himself look like a bit of a prissy
little trouble maker. With Jacob you get what you see - practical,
fallible man eager to help and never preening or gloating over other
people's errors.

No one is asking for this group to lose the essence of standard C but
the techniques and approaches also benefit programmers in more specific
compilers and platforms occasionally. And to discuss issues with the
language amongst the C cognoscenti is, IMO, perfect for here. Keep most
in a single thread. Don't like it? Kill the thread.
Dec 9 '07 #34
William Pursell wrote:
On 9 Dec, 17:33, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.comwrote:
(re: Richard Heathfield)
>He believes that he can always destroy threads discussing
changes in the language, proposals about improving this
or that inconsistency, etc with his eternal "off topic"
whining.

What is on topic or not is not for Mr Heathfield to decide

I repeat: he has NO AUTHORITY here, in any case no more than
anyone else.

This is technically correct.
OK.
However, I believe Mr.
Heathfield has more reader's respect than
do you, and in that sense he realistically does
have more of an impact on the group. That may
be construed as more authority.
He has surely a group of people behind him that
do not hesitate to start insulting anyone
that doesn't agree with them.
>And I repeat again:

I will go on trying to bring this changes into C, and I beleiev this
group is the correct forum, and if someone doesn't like that it can
always use a killfile.

Just throwing in a data point: I agree with you
that there are quite a few people who annoyingly
throttle good discussions in the name of topicality
in a way that I think is inappropriate. However,
I also think that you often attempt to initiate
discussions that are in fact totally off topic
and appear to be nothing more than attempts
to support what appears to be your overly inflated
ego.
Example?
What discussion about what when?
In point of fact, I rarely read posts
with your name on them, because I for one
have grown tired of your ranting about the
wonderful extensions in lcc-win32, most of which
seem to me to be totally pointless.
You could participate and SAY in which technical point or why
they are "pointless". That could be more constructive isn't it?
Or say how would YOU solve the problems I raise (need for an
abstract container syntax, bounds checked arrays, introduction
of new numbers, exceptions etc etc)

And please, just "use C++" is not any argument.

Also,
I'm pretty tired of your rants against RH.
(To be fair, I also am annoyed at his counter
rants, although I find myself in agreement
with him more often than with you, so I am
more tolerant of his.) Does this make me
his "friend" (a word which you seem to be using
in a derogatory way to describe mindless
followers of some cult personality) ? No,
it just means that he tends to post technical
details that I find interesting, whereas you
don't.
If you are interested in Heathfield post that is 100% OK with me.
If you are not interested in the posts I do (for whatever reasons)
that is 100% OK with me. But please do not try to kill discussions
with "off topic off topic". Just do not participate and that would be
all!

To summarize: most of the time you're hurting
your own case by being an annoying twit. I truly
don't mean this as an insult, and I don't want
to offend you, but...get a clue.
Just go on ignoring my posts and all will go on well.
You do not need to read them at all.
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Dec 9 '07 #35
In article <mt************@news.individual.net>,
Richard <rg****@gmail.comwrote:
>Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrites:
>jacob navia <ja***@nospam.comwrites:
[...]
>>The subject of the group is C. Nowhere in the charter was mentioned
that it was just ISO C.
[...]

This newsgroup has no charter.
The extreme psychosis evidenced by this (often repeated statement)
speaks for itself. Obviously this group has "something" about it that
makes it have a clearly defined purpose and clearly defined (and often
enunciated) limits on what should (and can) be discussed. If that isn't
a charter (or the moral equivalent thereof, regardless of what you
choose to call it), I don't know what is.

The above is clearly self-evident to anyone with an IQ above room
temperature (Yes, I know that exclused things like RH and KT). What is
more interesting is the question raised below.
>I know you've been told that a number of times. Apparently you just
haven't been told *enough* times. Let me know how many times you need
to be told that this newsgroup has no charter before you believe it,
and I'll be glad to send you an e-mail message that repeats the
statement "comp.lang.c has no charter" that many itmes.
Honest question here (and one I truly hope KT has the courage and
decency to answer): Why is this so important to you? Why do you insist
on denying (against all logic) the existence of a charter (said term
interpreted as described above) for clc? Why do you make such a big
deal of it?
>The how come you and Heathfield seem to know so much about what can and
can not be posted? comp.lang.c. computers-language-c.

Some flexibility does no harm. It's why God gave us a brain and
newsreaders with "kill thread" functionality.
You would think...

However:
As indicated above, it is not clear that God did give things like RH &
KT brains. Whether or not they have "kill thread" (aka, "killfile")
capabilities cannot as yet be determined.

Dec 9 '07 #36
James Kuyper said:
jacob navia wrote:
...
>But there was a very informal process when somebody proposed
creating a group, and since this group existed BEFORE the
formal process was designed, it is perfectly correct to use
that message as the charter of this group.

No, the only correct thing to say is that is has no charter, only an
informal statement of purpose.
>And in ANY case, I see no mention anywhere that there was
a voting process that would have conferred Mr Heathfield any
authority in this group whatsoever!

Agreed.
Likewise. Nor have I ever claimed otherwise. It's a strawman.

--
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
Dec 9 '07 #37
In article <13*************@corp.supernews.com>,
Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrote:
>jacob navia wrote:
>James Kuyper wrote:
>>>
The message you cited doesn't even contain the word "charter".

It is *the* founding message of this group.

A Charter is not an email. It has a very specific meaning in usenet.
Granted. But this is simply not a distinction that anyone with an IQ
above room temperature gives a hoot about.

Thus:
1) The psychosis of those who continue to insist that there is a
difference (that matters to anyone other than other psychotics) would
make a great case study for a Psychology PHD.
2) Jacob *would* probably do well to stop using that (that old email) as
his case, since the psychotics that he is trying to convince (his
intended audience) have alreay shown themselves immune to it.

Dec 9 '07 #38
In article <87************@kvetch.smov.org>,
well-known whack job Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote:
>jacob navia <ja***@nospam.comwrites:
[...]
>The subject of the group is C. Nowhere in the charter was mentioned
that it was just ISO C.
[...]

This newsgroup has no charter.

I know you've been told that a number of times. Apparently you just
haven't been told *enough* times. Let me know how many times you need
to be told that this newsgroup has no charter before you believe it,
and I'll be glad to send you an e-mail message that repeats the
statement "comp.lang.c has no charter" that many itmes.
What a loon!

Dec 9 '07 #39
jacob navia wrote:
William Pursell wrote:
.... snip ...
>
>However, I believe Mr. Heathfield has more reader's respect than
do you, and in that sense he realistically does have more of an
impact on the group. That may be construed as more authority.

He has surely a group of people behind him that do not hesitate
to start insulting anyone that doesn't agree with them.
Just for sport, maybe all readers who consider themselves capable
of distinguishing Richard Heathfield in an army of male humans,
would answer with a 'Distinguish' sentence. Those who are
incapable of so-doing should answer 'Undistinguished'.

This might tend to deny (or confirm) Jacobs conclusions.

Undistinguished.

--
Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, Happy New Year
Joyeux Noel, Bonne Annee.
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>

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

Dec 10 '07 #40
jacob navia <ja***@nospam.comwrites:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
[snip]
I do not care about your opinion, neither the opinion of
your friends. And I do not give a dam either about your
insults campaign, done with anonymous posts.
[...]

What anonymous posts are you referring to? What evidence do you have
that Richard Heathfield has ever posted here anonymously?

Making baseless accusations does not make you look good.

--
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"
Dec 10 '07 #41
On 9 Dec, 20:06, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.comwrote:
William Pursell wrote:
On 9 Dec, 17:33, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.comwrote:
(re: Richard Heathfield)
He has surely a group of people behind him that
do not hesitate to start insulting anyone
that doesn't agree with them.
There is a lot of rampant and pointless name-calling
on this group. And I apologize both to you and
the group for adding to that with my
post yesterday. Although I truly did not mean
it as an insult when I called you a an "annoying
twit", I can see that there is no other possible
way to interpret that. I typed in haste, and
apologize for saying that.
Just throwing in a data point: I agree with you
that there are quite a few people who annoyingly
throttle good discussions in the name of topicality
in a way that I think is inappropriate. However,
I also think that you often attempt to initiate
discussions that are in fact totally off topic
and appear to be nothing more than attempts
to support what appears to be your overly inflated
ego.

Example?
What discussion about what when?

I don't have examples. I was merely conveying my
overall impression of you as a poster.
>
In point of fact, I rarely read posts
with your name on them, because I for one
have grown tired of your ranting about the
wonderful extensions in lcc-win32, most of which
seem to me to be totally pointless.

You could participate and SAY in which technical point or why
they are "pointless". That could be more constructive isn't it?
Or say how would YOU solve the problems I raise (need for an
abstract container syntax, bounds checked arrays, introduction
of new numbers, exceptions etc etc)
The key here is "need". I disagree that C needs these
things. That is really the fundamental argument that
I often see you failing to make. Whether it is
Heathfeild's or someone else's fault, discussions
seem to boil down to:

JN: This is the solution to bounds checked arrays.
Other: C doesn't need bounds checked arrays.
JN: Are you an idiot?! Of course it does, and here's
how it is solved in lcc-win32, the greatest compiler
ever written, by the greatest compiler in the history
of computing, and you're an idiot!

I do not pretend that that exact dialogue has ever
occurred, and am merely presenting my impression
of your posts over the past year.
>
And please, just "use C++" is not any argument.
Believe me, I am the last person who will ever
recommend C++.

Dec 10 '07 #42
William Pursell wrote:
The key here is "need". I disagree that C needs these
things. That is really the fundamental argument that
I often see you failing to make.
I am saying that it should be possible to program in C using
a normal software engineering environment, i.e. an environment
where things like exceptions are there, an environment where
you can do things like containers and bound checked
arrays if you wish.

All those things are applications of a *single* enhancement:
operator overloading.

There is a misunderstanding if you think I want to add all those things
to the language. That is surely NOT the case. Those things can be done
if we add operator overloading, but they need not be in all
implementations, and I have always said that this enhancements are
optional in the sense that you do not need to use them, you can still
program as before with these enhancements there.

Another things is the subject of this thread, i.e. exceptions.

Exceptions are needed in C specially in embedded systems
where a reasonable handling of errors and traps is REQUIRED!

The argumentation of many people here (not Heathfield since
I do not recall any argument from that person, just "off topic", etc)
is that error handling should be done manually, i.e. it is up to the
programmer to catch all possible exceptions and be held responsible for
all routines he calls. If any of those traps, the application
fails and that is all.

This is just not acceptable in many environments.

Please let's argument within the technical context

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Dec 10 '07 #43
On 8 Dec 2007 at 14:46, Richard Heathfield wrote:
A few weeks ago the group discussed topicality and whether they would
like it to change, and the overwhelming majority stated that they
wished the group to continue to restrict itself to K&R C and the
various ISO standards. If you wanted to loosen up the topicality
requirements of this group, that would have been a great time to make
yourself heard, but IIRC you did not do so. Even if you had taken
part, however, you would have been in the minority (as was I).
This is pretty breathtaking cynicism. Do you think anyone will really
fall for this "I'm a moderate, because I say so", when your actions in
this group (constant sniping, constant "you're off topic" posts) give
the lie to this claim day after day?

Dec 10 '07 #44
>>>>"AT" == Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrites:

ATOn 8 Dec 2007 at 14:46, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>A few weeks ago the group discussed topicality and whether they
would like it to change, and the overwhelming majority stated
that they wished the group to continue to restrict itself to
K&R C and the various ISO standards.
ATThis is pretty breathtaking cynicism. Do you think anyone will
ATreally fall for this "I'm a moderate, because I say so", when
ATyour actions in this group (constant sniping, constant "you're
AToff topic" posts) give the lie to this claim day after day?

Whether Mr Heathfield is "moderate" or "conservative" or "liberal" in
his view on topicality is largely irrelevant; there *was* a lengthy
thread, where Mr Heathfield asked the contributors to the group what
they preferred to be topical. Considered on a basis of one poster,
one vote, the consensus of the group is almost overwhelmingly in favor
of the narrowly-defined topicality of K&R and ISO C. Further, it was
conducted in public, so you can go back and read the votes and the
rationales behind them.

I recommend you search for it on Google Groups; you might be
enlightened.

Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cw*****@chromatico.net
Dec 10 '07 #45
On 10 Dec 2007 at 21:47, Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>>>>>"AT" == Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrites:
ATThis is pretty breathtaking cynicism. Do you think anyone will
ATreally fall for this "I'm a moderate, because I say so", when
ATyour actions in this group (constant sniping, constant "you're
AToff topic" posts) give the lie to this claim day after day?

Whether Mr Heathfield is "moderate" or "conservative" or "liberal" in
his view on topicality is largely irrelevant; there *was* a lengthy
thread, where Mr Heathfield asked the contributors to the group what
they preferred to be topical. Considered on a basis of one poster,
one vote, the consensus of the group is almost overwhelmingly in favor
of the narrowly-defined topicality of K&R and ISO C. Further, it was
conducted in public, so you can go back and read the votes and the
rationales behind them.

I recommend you search for it on Google Groups; you might be
enlightened.
Perhaps you should search Google Groups yourself: here is a good example
of a thread <http://tinyurl.com/2rpx5zwhere Heathfield's true colors
are well and truly shown.

Dec 10 '07 #46
>>>>"AT" == Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrites:

ATPerhaps you should search Google Groups yourself: here is a
ATgood example of a thread <http://tinyurl.com/2rpx5zwhere
ATHeathfield's true colors are well and truly shown.

I've been participating in this newsgroup for over a decade, long
enough to remember the Scott Nuds and Portable ASM debacle; I don't
think I need an anonymous troll telling me what to think about
regulars of long standing.

Further, why are you trying to make this a personal attack on Mr
Heathfield? The limits on topicality that he encourages are the ones
supported by the vast majority of people who bothered to respond to
that thread, started by the same Mr Heathfield in response to
criticisms like yours that his view of topicality was too narrow.

Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cw*****@chromatico.net
Dec 10 '07 #47
jacob navia wrote:
William Pursell wrote:
The key here is "need". I disagree that C needs these
things. That is really the fundamental argument that
I often see you failing to make.

I am saying that it should be possible to program in C using
a normal software engineering environment, i.e. an environment
where things like exceptions are there, an environment where
you can do things like containers and bound checked
arrays if you wish.
Hey, dumb ass, guess what? You get get this "normal software
engineering environment" any day of the week by the simple expedient
of using C++ or Java.

Do you think anyone in this group is interesting in your constant
attacks on standard C? Why don't you just get out of our hair and use
a programming language that suits you better.

It seems to be a vicious circle with you. You aren't really happy with
C, so you go off and get tied up with your stupid compiler extensions,
then this makes you care even less about C, and so it goes on.

No one gives a flying firkin about your exceptions and your bounds-
checked arrays. We come here to discuss C.
>
All those things are applications of a *single* enhancement:
operator overloading.
For enhancement, read misfeature leading to bloat and pointless
complexity. Once again, C++ is there if you want it - go drown
yourself in its "enhancements".
There is a misunderstanding if you think I want to add all those things
to the language. That is surely NOT the case. Those things can be done
if we add operator overloading, but they need not be in all
implementations, and I have always said that this enhancements are
optional in the sense that you do not need to use them, you can still
program as before with these enhancements there.

Another things is the subject of this thread, i.e. exceptions.

Exceptions are needed in C specially in embedded systems
where a reasonable handling of errors and traps is REQUIRED!
Utter garbage. You have no clue about embedded programming.
>
The argumentation of many people here (not Heathfield since
I do not recall any argument from that person, just "off topic", etc)
is that error handling should be done manually, i.e. it is up to the
programmer to catch all possible exceptions and be held responsible for
all routines he calls. If any of those traps, the application
fails and that is all.

This is just not acceptable in many environments.

Please let's argument within the technical context
Yeah, right. Unfortunately, you're incapable of technical argument.
Dec 10 '07 #48
ro*******@mailinator.com wrote:
Hey, dumb ass, guess what?
[snip]

This is the only level of discussion that the "regulars" are able to
master.

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Dec 10 '07 #49
In article <sl*******************@nospam.invalid>,
Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrote:
>On 8 Dec 2007 at 14:46, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>A few weeks ago the group discussed topicality and whether they would
like it to change, and the overwhelming majority stated that they
wished the group to continue to restrict itself to K&R C and the
various ISO standards. If you wanted to loosen up the topicality
requirements of this group, that would have been a great time to make
yourself heard, but IIRC you did not do so. Even if you had taken
part, however, you would have been in the minority (as was I).

This is pretty breathtaking cynicism. Do you think anyone will really
fall for this "I'm a moderate, because I say so", when your actions in
this group (constant sniping, constant "you're off topic" posts) give
the lie to this claim day after day?
Yes, apparently he does.

Yes, mindboggling.

Dec 10 '07 #50

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

16 posts views Thread by David Turner | last post: by
21 posts views Thread by dkcpub | last post: by
26 posts views Thread by OvErboRed | last post: by
9 posts views Thread by Gianni Mariani | last post: by
6 posts views Thread by RepStat | last post: by
14 posts views Thread by dcassar | last post: by
1 post views Thread by Anonieko | last post: by
reply views Thread by NPC403 | last post: by
reply views Thread by kmladenovski | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.