By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
428,759 Members | 1,778 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 428,759 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Making C better (by borrowing from C++)

P: n/a
I know that this topic may inflame the "C language Taleban", but is
there any prospect of some of the neat features of C++ getting
incorporated in C? No I am not talking out the OO stuff. I am talking
about the non-OO stuff, that seems to be handled much more elegantly in
C++, as compared to C. For example new & delete, references, consts,
declaring variables just before use etc.

I am asking this question with a vested interest. I would really like
to use these features in my C programs.

Masood
Dec 23 '07 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
204 Replies


P: n/a
Masood wrote:
I know that this topic may inflame the "C language Taleban", but is
there any prospect of some of the neat features of C++ getting
incorporated in C? No I am not talking out the OO stuff. I am
talking about the non-OO stuff, that seems to be handled much more
elegantly in C++, as compared to C. For example new & delete,
references, consts, declaring variables just before use etc.
Mixed code and declarations and const are already in C. You can use
malloc and free instead of new and delete and pointers to simulate
references.
I am asking this question with a vested interest. I would really like
to use these features in my C programs.
Try lcc-win from jacob navia. It's just for folks like you. Don't have
too much hope of seeing them in C.

Dec 23 '07 #2

P: n/a
Masood wrote:
I know that this topic may inflame the "C language Taleban", but is
there any prospect of some of the neat features of C++ getting
incorporated in C? No I am not talking out the OO stuff. I am talking
about the non-OO stuff, that seems to be handled much more elegantly in
C++, as compared to C. For example new & delete, references, consts,
declaring variables just before use etc.

I am asking this question with a vested interest. I would really like
to use these features in my C programs.

Masood
As you seem willing to modify your C programs to incorporate these
features, why not change the source file extension from .c to .cc and
feed it to your favorite C++ compiler?

--
Joe Wright
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
--- Albert Einstein ---
Dec 23 '07 #3

P: n/a
On Dec 23, 10:29 am, Masood <masood.iq...@nospam.comwrote:
I know that this topic may inflame the "C language Taleban", but is
there any prospect of some of the neat features of C++ getting
incorporated in C? No I am not talking out the OO stuff. I am talking
about the non-OO stuff, that seems to be handled much more elegantly in
C++, as compared to C. For example new & delete
There's no need for new and delete aside from a minor syntactic
convenience as the big difference between malloc/delete and friends is
that new and delete properly handle constructors and destructors.
Adding new and delete to C would do little more than complicate the
language without buying you anything.
references
References exist in C++ mainly to supplement operator overloading. I
personally wouldn't mind references or operator overloading in C, but
this newsgroup isn't the place to discuss improvements to the
language, it's the place to discuss the language as defined by one of
the standards.
consts
C supports const. Presumably you mean a stronger const that can be
used as an array size:

int main ( void )
{
const int foo = 10;
int bar[foo];

return 0;
}

And you want this to avoid manifest constants with the preprocessor.
declaring variables just before use etc.
C99 already supports this. Though I'm not convinced that it's a
desirable feature in C. In fact, except in a few well defined cases,
I'm leaning toward recommending that despite the fact you can now mix
declarations and statements, it's a better practice to continue
placing all declarations at the top of a block.
I am asking this question with a vested interest. I would really like
to use these features in my C programs.
I don't know of any proposals that *weren't* born of a vested
interest. ;-) Nobody stands up and says "I'd never use this or care
about it, but how about we add <xxxfeature? That'd be cool."
-Jul
Dec 23 '07 #4

P: n/a
Masood wrote:
I know that this topic may inflame the "C language Taleban", but is
there any prospect of some of the neat features of C++ getting
incorporated in C? No I am not talking out the OO stuff. I am talking
about the non-OO stuff, that seems to be handled much more elegantly in
C++, as compared to C. For example new & delete, references, consts,
declaring variables just before use etc.

I am asking this question with a vested interest. I would really like
to use these features in my C programs.
Only two of these seem to be of much use in C. Declarations
mixed with statements are already allowed by the C99 Standard, so
your wish is granted. The semantics of `const' (meaning "read-
only" rather than "compile-time constant") seem unlikely to change
at this point, so you probably don't get that one -- but plain C
offers alternatives that may suffice for many situations.

I find it hard to imagine how new and delete can be of much
benefit without constructors and destructors to go along with
them. All they could do is reserve and release memory, and C
already has mechanisms (plural) to do that. If you want to drag
in constructors and destructors to make new and delete useful,
I think you're bringing in too much of "the OO stuff" that you
intended to avoid.

References -- well, I'm not a C++ programmer and do not claim
to understand references fully. When I want a function to change
something the caller supplies to it, I use a pointer and all is
well. What do you want to accomplish that pointers can't handle?

Finally, you might want to avoid inflammatory epithets if
you want serious consideration of your ideas and proposals. True,
a few contributors to this forum habitually lard their arguments
with explicit assumptions that all opponents are fools and morons,
but you might take a lesson from the notable lack of success such
arguments have met. Make your arguments on their merits, because
they'll be rejected out of hand if you make them on their demerits.

--
Eric Sosman
es*****@ieee-dot-org.invalid
Dec 23 '07 #5

P: n/a
On Dec 23, 7:00 pm, Julienne Walker <happyfro...@hotmail.comwrote:
On Dec 23, 10:29 am, Masood <masood.iq...@nospam.comwrote:
consts

C supports const. Presumably you mean a stronger const that can be
used as an array size:

int main ( void )
{
const int foo = 10;
int bar[foo];

return 0;

}
foo needs not to be const.
Dec 23 '07 #6

P: n/a
Masood wrote:
I know that this topic may inflame the "C language Taleban"
*plonk*

Brian

Dec 23 '07 #7

P: n/a
santosh wrote:
Masood wrote:
>I know that this topic may inflame the "C language Taleban", but is
there any prospect of some of the neat features of C++ getting
incorporated in C? No I am not talking out the OO stuff. I am
talking about the non-OO stuff, that seems to be handled much more
elegantly in C++, as compared to C. For example new & delete,
references, consts, declaring variables just before use etc.

Mixed code and declarations and const are already in C. You can use
malloc and free instead of new and delete and pointers to simulate
references.
>I am asking this question with a vested interest. I would really like
to use these features in my C programs.

Try lcc-win from jacob navia. It's just for folks like you. Don't have
too much hope of seeing them in C.
The lcc-win compiler system introduced several features from C++
as C extensions:

o operator overloading
o generic functions
o default arguments
o Garbage collector
o references

You can download the lcc-win compiler system from the URL below

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Dec 23 '07 #8

P: n/a
Masood wrote:
I know that this topic may inflame the "C language Taleban", but is
there any prospect of some of the neat features of C++ getting
incorporated in C? No I am not talking out the OO stuff. I am talking
about the non-OO stuff, that seems to be handled much more elegantly in
C++, as compared to C. For example new & delete,
If you actually have used new and delete, you know that they are more
limited than the standard C functions.
references,
Completely unneeded syntactical sugar, designed to help people who write
bad code write even sloppier code.
consts,
C has const; C has constants (and enums). There is no need for C++
semantics.
declaring variables just before use etc.
C has declaring variables just before use. This was added so that
people who write bad code can write even sloppier code. Even without
it, as in the pre-C99 standard, introducing a block will generally
provide all the legitimate need you might have for such a thing.
>
I am asking this question with a vested interest. I would really like
to use these features in my C programs.
Why? What possible advantage is there?
Dec 23 '07 #9

P: n/a
Masood <ma**********@nospam.comwrites:
I know that this topic may inflame the "C language Taleban", but
[SNIP]

Until and unless you apologize for the above insult, I will not
discuss this or anything else with you.

--
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 23 '07 #10

P: n/a
On 23 Dec 2007 at 19:10, Keith Thompson wrote:
Masood <ma**********@nospam.comwrites:
>I know that this topic may inflame the "C language Taleban", but
[SNIP]

Until and unless you apologize for the above insult, I will not
discuss this or anything else with you.
Ha ha, that's a laugh. Heath Field's most faithful lieutentant wouldn't
ever discuss anything as off-topic as possible improvements to C with
you, whether or not you insult him.

(Interesting to note that HeathField's supporters know who's meant by
the "C Taleban")

Dec 23 '07 #11

P: n/a
Tim Smith <re************@mouse-potato.comwrites:
In article <fk**********@aioe.org>, Masood <ma**********@nospam.com>
wrote:
>I know that this topic may inflame the "C language Taleban", but is

If you are going to insult people, [deleted], do it right. It is Taliban.
<OT>Both spellings are correct.</OT>

--
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 23 '07 #12

P: n/a
Masood wrote:
>
I know that this topic may inflame the "C language Taleban", but
is there any prospect of some of the neat features of C++ getting
incorporated in C? No I am not talking out the OO stuff. I am
talking about the non-OO stuff, that seems to be handled much more
elegantly in C++, as compared to C. For example new & delete,
references, consts, declaring variables just before use etc.

I am asking this question with a vested interest. I would really
like to use these features in my C programs.
I suggest you just use C++ (and the appropriate newsgroup) and
write the appropriate programs. The languages are different, and
attempting to combine them (as they stand) will just lead to
confusion and errors.

You don't have to use GUI, object orientation, etc. in either
language.

--
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 24 '07 #13

P: n/a
In article <87************@kvetch.smov.org>, Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.orgwrites
>Masood <ma**********@nospam.comwrites:
>I know that this topic may inflame the "C language Taleban", but
[SNIP]

Until and unless you apologize for the above insult, I will not
discuss this or anything else with you.
Then don't... Was it aimed at you personally?

In any event you now see how c.l.c is seen by many people. The "C
language Taliban" A group of "religious" nutters.

This is why I have been saying c.l.c needs to relax a but from some of
the pedantry being enforced by a small but vocal group

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

Dec 24 '07 #14

P: n/a
Chris Hills said:

<snip>
In any event you now see how c.l.c is seen by many people. The "C
language Taliban" A group of "religious" nutters.
Er, so? Lots of people view with considerable suspicion anyone having an
above-room-temperature IQ. Big deal.
This is why I have been saying c.l.c needs to relax a but from some of
the pedantry being enforced by a small but vocal group
Firstly, nobody enforces anything here; everyone is free to post as much
off-topic inaccurate junk as they can find the time to compose.

Secondly, by what power or authority does this supposed group enforce
anything? (If the answer is "none", then you contradict yourself.)

Thirdly, the size of the group of people who post topical, (mostly)
correct, and helpful information here considerably exceeds the size of the
group that prefers to spend its time carping and sneering at those who
actually offer help.

Fourthly, regarding pedantry: it appears that you wish the level of
accuracy of answers posted in comp.lang.c to be lowered. Obviously, what
others post is their affair, but from me the answer is "no". I will not
deliberately be wrong in a vain bid to be popular. That would be very
silly indeed.

--
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 24 '07 #15

P: n/a
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrites:
Masood <ma**********@nospam.comwrites:
>I know that this topic may inflame the "C language Taleban", but
[SNIP]

Until and unless you apologize for the above insult, I will not
discuss this or anything else with you.
Then don't. You wouldn't have done so anyway other than to say "OT, not
discussed, blah, blah, blah".

In fact, I think the OP meant you and RH when he mentioned the C
Taleban. Not a bad reference. Closed minded, not open to change, think
they are in charge "for the best" of everyone else.

Dec 24 '07 #16

P: n/a
Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrites:
In article <87************@kvetch.smov.org>, Keith Thompson
<ks***@mib.orgwrites
>>Masood <ma**********@nospam.comwrites:
>>I know that this topic may inflame the "C language Taleban", but
[SNIP]

Until and unless you apologize for the above insult, I will not
discuss this or anything else with you.

Then don't... Was it aimed at you personally?
Such insults are typically aimed at "the regulars", of which I am one.
Yes, it very likely was aimed at me and a few others. (If it wasn't,
Masood is free to say so.)

In any case, it doesn't really matter at whom it was aimed. Such
gratuitous preemptive attacks are inappropriate here. Don't you
agree?
In any event you now see how c.l.c is seen by many people. The "C
language Taliban" A group of "religious" nutters.
A small number of trolls claim to see it that way. I hope you don't.
You generally seem more sane than that.
This is why I have been saying c.l.c needs to relax a but from some of
the pedantry being enforced by a small but vocal group
We've had this discussion. Richard Heathfield posted an informal
survey asking whether the topicality guidelines for this group should
be loosened. The majority of responders said they shouldn't.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <ks***@mib.org>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Dec 24 '07 #17

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield wrote:
Chris Hills said:

<snip>
>In any event you now see how c.l.c is seen by many people. The "C
language Taliban" A group of "religious" nutters.

Er, so? Lots of people view with considerable suspicion anyone having an
above-room-temperature IQ. Big deal.
>This is why I have been saying c.l.c needs to relax a but from some of
the pedantry being enforced by a small but vocal group

Firstly, nobody enforces anything here; everyone is free to post as much
off-topic inaccurate junk as they can find the time to compose.
You are the living proof of that
Secondly, by what power or authority does this supposed group enforce
anything? (If the answer is "none", then you contradict yourself.)
By insulting througha nonymous posts everyone that doesn't agree with
their parochial views

YOU rezcommend libcurl in this thread but when I
recommend lcc-win I am a "notorious spammer"
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Dec 24 '07 #18

P: n/a
jacob navia said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>Chris Hills said:
<snip>
>>This is why I have been saying c.l.c needs to relax a but from some of
the pedantry being enforced by a small but vocal group

Firstly, nobody enforces anything here; everyone is free to post as much
off-topic inaccurate junk as they can find the time to compose.

You are the living proof of that
I see no justification for that claim.
>Secondly, by what power or authority does this supposed group enforce
anything? (If the answer is "none", then you contradict yourself.)

By insulting througha nonymous posts everyone that doesn't agree with
their parochial views
Anonymous posting confers neither power nor authority. Nor does it carry
respect. Those who hide behind anonymity to make personal attacks are
beneath contempt. If you are suggesting that such cowards are, or are
under the control of, regular contributors to this group, then you really
don't understand the people you attack. I can't see any of them stooping
so low.
YOU rezcommend libcurl in this thread but when I
recommend lcc-win I am a "notorious spammer"
Right. I didn't write libcurl, nor am I responsible for maintaining it, nor
do I stand to make any money off it. I have no financial interest
whatsoever in its success. Nor am I associated with any who do. You,
however, have a vested financial interest in lcc-win's success. So your
promotion of it can hardly claim to be a disinterested and independent
recommendation.

--
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 24 '07 #19

P: n/a
In article <K_******************************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>jacob navia said:
>Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>Chris Hills said:
<snip>
>>>This is why I have been saying c.l.c needs to relax a but from some of
the pedantry being enforced by a small but vocal group

Firstly, nobody enforces anything here; everyone is free to post as much
off-topic inaccurate junk as they can find the time to compose.

You are the living proof of that

I see no justification for that claim.
This comes as a big surprise to us all, trust me.
>>Secondly, by what power or authority does this supposed group enforce
anything? (If the answer is "none", then you contradict yourself.)

By insulting througha nonymous posts everyone that doesn't agree with
their parochial views

Anonymous posting confers neither power nor authority. Nor does it carry
respect. Those who hide behind anonymity to make personal attacks are
beneath contempt.
Yes. Very true. So, why do you do it?
(You don't have to answer that...)
>If you are suggesting that such cowards are, or are
under the control of, regular contributors to this group, then you really
don't understand the people you attack. I can't see any of them stooping
so low.
This also comes as a big shock.
(You're lying, of course, but that also comes as a big shock to all)
>YOU rezcommend libcurl in this thread but when I
recommend lcc-win I am a "notorious spammer"

Right. I didn't write libcurl, nor am I responsible for maintaining it, nor
do I stand to make any money off it. I have no financial interest
whatsoever in its success. Nor am I associated with any who do. You,
however, have a vested financial interest in lcc-win's success. So your
promotion of it can hardly claim to be a disinterested and independent
recommendation.
Jacob never claimed to be disinterested. In fact, he has often made it
quite clear that he isn't (disinterested) and that, in fact, he puts
food on his table (at least in part) from the sale of his system. So,
you're raising a straw man here.

His point (which is, of course, 100% spot on) is that the commercial or
non-commercial nature of the spamming isn't the point. The point is who
is doing it (whether or not they are in the clique). It can further be
argue that "commercial" spamming is better, since it indicates someone
who has a stake in things. For example, CBF is constantly hawking his
dumbsh*t ggets() function, which, believe me, is only worth what you pay
for it, because it is free.

Dec 24 '07 #20

P: n/a
jacob navia <ja***@nospam.comwrites:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
[...]
>Secondly, by what power or authority does this supposed group
enforce anything? (If the answer is "none", then you contradict
yourself.)

By insulting througha nonymous posts everyone that doesn't agree with
their parochial views
I don't believe that Richard Heathfield posts anonymously. Do you
have any evidence that he does? If not, I suggest you stop repeating
this libellous and false accusation. Stop and think for a moment
before you post an article.

--
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 24 '07 #21

P: n/a
On Dec 24, 3:36 am, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.orgwrote:
Chris Hills <ch...@phaedsys.orgwrites:
In article <87odchkz1v....@kvetch.smov.org>, Keith Thompson
<ks...@mib.orgwrites
>Masood <masood.iq...@nospam.comwrites:
I know that this topic may inflame the "C language Taleban", but
[SNIP]
>Until and unless you apologize for the above insult, I will not
discuss this or anything else with you.
Then don't... Was it aimed at you personally?

Such insults are typically aimed at "the regulars", of which I am one.
Yes, it very likely was aimed at me and a few others. (If it wasn't,
Masood is free to say so.)

In any case, it doesn't really matter at whom it was aimed. Such
gratuitous preemptive attacks are inappropriate here. Don't you
agree?
In any event you now see how c.l.c is seen by many people. The "C
language Taliban" A group of "religious" nutters.

A small number of trolls claim to see it that way. I hope you don't.
You generally seem more sane than that.
Yay! Until and unless you apologize for the above insult, I will not
discuss
this or anything else with you. Like anybody cares.
>
This is why I have been saying c.l.c needs to relax a but from some of
the pedantry being enforced by a small but vocal group

We've had this discussion. Richard Heathfield posted an informal
survey asking whether the topicality guidelines for this group should
be loosened. The majority of responders said they shouldn't.
BS.

Yevgen
Dec 24 '07 #22

P: n/a
ym******@gmail.com said:

<snip>
What he said in no way contradicts "c.l.c
needs to relax a but from some of the pedantry being enforced by
a small but vocal group".
Are you saying that you would prefer the group to lower the quality of its
advice?

<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
Dec 24 '07 #23

P: n/a
On Dec 24, 3:51 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalidwrote:
ymunt...@gmail.com said:

<snip>
What he said in no way contradicts "c.l.c
needs to relax a but from some of the pedantry being enforced by
a small but vocal group".

Are you saying that you would prefer the group to lower the quality of its
advice?
If I understand your question correctly, my answer is "no".

Are you saying that fighting with Jacob Navia is "quality"?
What you say about newbies and kittens, and correcting mistakes,
etc. is BS too. GNU and MS do much more harm than Jacob with his
compiler as far as correct portable code (or learning to write
such code) is concerned.

Let me re-quote what you snip

"In any event you now see how c.l.c is seen by many people. The "C
language Taliban" A group of "religious" nutters.

This is why I have been saying c.l.c needs to relax a but from some of
the pedantry being enforced by a small but vocal group"

You can pick random words from posts and then prove they are
wrong how much you want, but it won't change a thing, you know.
If you want, here you go: you are right again, once more,
hooray!

Yevgen
Dec 24 '07 #24

P: n/a
ym******@gmail.com wrote:
So this is your new thing: JN is a spammer. And you are fighting
"commercial exploitation of comp.lang.c". Yeah.
JN vs RH is going on here for years, and suddenly it becomes
fighting spam which can be *mis*interpreted. Good one!

Yevgen
That is ridiculous. I could also argue that RH exploits this group
commercially since the fact of him being the guru here promotes his book
and he earns money with it.

What is stupid is that he has the right to promote libcurl, and I do
not have the right of proposing my own work as a solution.

Coming back to C interfaces (that is more on topic):

The problem with libcurl, as the user noted, is that you have to do a
lot of stuff to get a file from the internet. I provided a higher
level interface with just two inputs: URL, and destination file.

This is much more higher level than libcurl.

In general, many interfaces in C tend to be much too low level, bogging
down users into a lot of stuff that could be abstracted away.

For instance, another useful function would be:

char *strfromfile(const char *file_name,const char *open_mode);

This would return a malloced string from the given file or NULL if
something went wrong.

This could be in the library but it isn't.

Most of the time this days, you have enough memory to process
the whole contents of a file into a RAM buffer. This would be
a good addition to the library, like many other HIGHER LEVEL
functions.

Just mt 2c

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Dec 24 '07 #25

P: n/a
ym******@gmail.com wrote:

Yay! Until and unless you apologize for the above insult, I will not
discuss
this or anything else with you. Like anybody cares.
*plonk*

Brian
Dec 24 '07 #26

P: n/a
jacob navia wrote:
ym******@gmail.com wrote:
>So this is your new thing: JN is a spammer. And you are fighting
"commercial exploitation of comp.lang.c". Yeah.
JN vs RH is going on here for years, and suddenly it becomes
fighting spam which can be *mis*interpreted. Good one!

That is ridiculous. I could also argue that RH exploits this group
commercially since the fact of him being the guru here promotes
his book and he earns money with it.

What is stupid is that he has the right to promote libcurl, and I
do not have the right of proposing my own work as a solution.
Why this stupidity? Richard did not 'promote' libcurl, he only
justified its mention in other posts. You make no points with this
sort of inaccurate jibing. You haven't even bothered to read the
thread - ymuntyan has been agreeing with you and poking at the poor
'guru's.

We need another general thread to appoint official c.l.c gurus, and
to set their pay scales. Then we should also establish a scale of
fines for disagreeing with them, methods for enthroning and
dethroning, public lists of recommended PLONKEEs, etc. With a
little care we could make this newsgroup completely satisfactory to
me, which is the obvious correct final objective.

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

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

Dec 25 '07 #27

P: n/a
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 13:46:18 -0800, ymuntyan wrote:
I didn't say there wasn't a thread or the majority of responders said
this or that. I am saying that the Keith's argument is BS, meaning it
has no value. What he said in no way contradicts "c.l.c needs to relax a
but from some of the pedantry being enforced by a small but vocal
group".
Which part of "we had a vote on this idea, and disagreed with it" is hard
for you to understand?
You obviously believe that the fact that you started some
thread, and that people who support your position said so, change
something[*] [**]. I believe that's BS.
And you're apparently the sort of person who will ignore the will of the
majority.

*plonk*
[*] Please don't get started again how you are cool and good
Nobody's ever claimed they were cool or good. You made that up.

Dec 25 '07 #28

P: n/a
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 00:00:09 +0100, jacob navia wrote:
That is ridiculous. I could also argue that RH exploits this group
commercially since the fact of him being the guru here promotes his book
and he earns money with it.
That's almost certainly a base libel. I do not belive RJH (who was by the
way the editor, many other regulars here and in CLC++ and CSC
contributed) has ever promoted the book here. Others have, on the basis
that its pretty good.
What is stupid is that he has the right to promote libcurl, and I do
not have the right of proposing my own work as a solution.
He didn't promote libcurl. He also receives no personal benefit from its
use.

On the other hand, you do receive personal benefit from lcc-win32. You
also seldom if ever declare that interest when suggesting it.

For myself, I'd have less problem with you suggesting lcc-win32 could
solve a specific problem if you also stated clearly your vested interest
and directed the OP to the lcc-win32 newsgroup for further dicsussion.
This would act as much the same sort of redirect as suggesting libcurl
and comp.unix.programmer, and could hardly be complained at.

In general, many interfaces in C tend to be much too low level, bogging
down users into a lot of stuff that could be abstracted away.
Well, thats a point of view. I assume you understand that this low level
is *on purpose*, to allow maximum portability and flexibility.

(of a string from file function)
This could be in the library but it isn't.
so could lots of things. Frankly, its probably not there because its not
a common enough requirement, and everyone agreed it was trivial to
implement your own in 5 minutes.
Most of the time this days, you have enough memory to process the whole
contents of a file into a RAM buffer.
*sigh*. This is a common fault with your postings. You're assuming the
world of PCs. You forget that C serves an enormous embedded-development
community whose memory limitations are significantly greater.

And even if this were not the case - I have a 7TB database, the largest
table of which is about 2TB and which I sincerely doubt makes sense to
load into memory in one go...
Dec 25 '07 #29

P: n/a
Mark McIntyre wrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 13:46:18 -0800, ymuntyan wrote:
>I didn't say there wasn't a thread or the majority of responders said
this or that. I am saying that the Keith's argument is BS, meaning it
has no value. What he said in no way contradicts "c.l.c needs to relax a
but from some of the pedantry being enforced by a small but vocal
group".

Which part of "we had a vote on this idea, and disagreed with it" is hard
for you to understand?
>You obviously believe that the fact that you started some
thread, and that people who support your position said so, change
something[*] [**]. I believe that's BS.

And you're apparently the sort of person who will ignore the will of the
majority.

*plonk*
>[*] Please don't get started again how you are cool and good

Nobody's ever claimed they were cool or good. You made that up.
Well I, for one, think that Mark is cool and good. Given that one is a
small group, I'm trying to contact Mark's mother.. :-)

Merry Christmas.

--
Joe Wright
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
--- Albert Einstein ---
Dec 25 '07 #30

P: n/a
ym******@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 24, 3:51 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>ymunt...@gmail.com said:

<snip>
>>What he said in no way contradicts "c.l.c
needs to relax a but from some of the pedantry being enforced by
a small but vocal group".
Are you saying that you would prefer the group to lower the quality of its
advice?

If I understand your question correctly, my answer is "no".

Are you saying that fighting with Jacob Navia is "quality"?
What you say about newbies and kittens, and correcting mistakes,
etc. is BS too. GNU and MS do much more harm than Jacob with his
compiler as far as correct portable code (or learning to write
such code) is concerned.

Let me re-quote what you snip

"In any event you now see how c.l.c is seen by many people. The "C
language Taliban" A group of "religious" nutters.

This is why I have been saying c.l.c needs to relax a but from some of
the pedantry being enforced by a small but vocal group"

You can pick random words from posts and then prove they are
wrong how much you want, but it won't change a thing, you know.
If you want, here you go: you are right again, once more,
hooray!

Yevgen
Let me put it this way: What is standard C? There can only be one answer to
that question. It can't be both C89 and C99, it can only be one or the other.
That is the problem with the "C language Taliban" Same as Sunni vs Shi'a. If
you allow more than one, it is the camel's nose under the tent as you have
implicitly approved all.

If anyone really wants to make this a fit place for any of the several C
standards, they better get together a FAQ, posted regularly, about the group and
list which standards are permitted and if they are serious about not having
posts about other C standards they should include pointers to where discussion
on those topics is encouraged. The lack of such a FAQ is a green light to call
GNU a standard C and discuss it here. They would also be smart to include
pointers for O/S specific libraries and questions because the name of the group
invites too much.

Dec 25 '07 #31

P: n/a
On Dec 24, 7:38 pm, Mark McIntyre <markmcint...@spamcop.netwrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 13:46:18 -0800, ymuntyan wrote:
I didn't say there wasn't a thread or the majority of responders said
this or that. I am saying that the Keith's argument is BS, meaning it
has no value. What he said in no way contradicts "c.l.c needs to relax a
but from some of the pedantry being enforced by a small but vocal
group".

Which part of "we had a vote on this idea, and disagreed with it" is hard
for you to understand?
You obviously believe that the fact that you started some
thread, and that people who support your position said so, change
something[*] [**]. I believe that's BS.

And you're apparently the sort of person who will ignore the will of the
majority.
"Vote", huh? Now that was a vote. Democracy, huh? If you want to call
it a vote, then call it what it is: a made up vote. Though I don't
think there was a vote (except maybe among those ten people who
was willing to play the game of vote or something).

So, that "majority" needs to be a majority. Anyway, that's not the
point. I do not support discussing off-topic stuff here. But claiming
that RH is not white and fluffy doesn't mean what you think it means.
You can't get it obviously.

A rhetoric question, by the way: what part of "vocal minority"
is not understood?
*plonk*
I suppose this means I am talking to a wall. Probably it's good.
[*] Please don't get started again how you are cool and good

Nobody's ever claimed they were cool or good. You made that up.
Richard loves to remind how he started that thread, and especially
how he in fact ... I didn't made it up at all.
Dec 25 '07 #32

P: n/a
Masood wrote:
I know that this topic may inflame the "C language Taleban", but is
Let's see, what characteristics do the people I think you're referring
to share with the Taliban? Well, like the Taliban, they have definite
strong opinions about how some things should be done, and voice those
opinions publicly. They share this characteristic with most churches,
the police, the Better Business Bureau, most of the people who decide to
run for public office, and virtually anyone else who's adequately
qualified for a leadership position of any kind.

What characteristics don't they share with the Taliban? Well, most
importantly, they haven't killed anybody. They haven't tortured anybody.
They haven't physically mutilated anybody. They don't have any power
whatsoever to enforce their opinions on anyone else. They have no power
over anyone else except through words. In other words, they don't
possess a single one of the powers whose abuse by the Taliban justly
earned the Taliban a death sentence.

If the Taliban had restricted their activities to the same ones used by
the people you're calling the "C language Taliban", they'd be no more
than one more religious group among many others, trying to spread it's
own point of view by persuasion, not force, as is the right of every
human being.

I also believe that there's another difference, but I doubt it's one I
could get you to agree with: unlike religious groups, the people you
call the "C language Taliban" include many who are susceptible to
changing their minds when faced with with well reasoned argument based
upon citations from the standard. Also, unlike the believers, they do
not consider the standard to be divinely inspired; the very human and
occasionally fallible authors of the C standard are clearly recognized
as such by virtually everyone here. They also understand, better than
their detractors, the way in which historical accidents have trapped the
standard in certain ways, due to the practical necessity of maintaining
backwards compatibility.
Dec 25 '07 #33

P: n/a
ym******@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 24, 3:51 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>ymunt...@gmail.com said:

<snip>
>>What he said in no way contradicts "c.l.c
needs to relax a but from some of the pedantry being enforced by
a small but vocal group".
Are you saying that you would prefer the group to lower the quality of its
advice?

If I understand your question correctly, my answer is "no".

Are you saying that fighting with Jacob Navia is "quality"?
No, it's one method, among many, for trying to achieve quality control.
It achieves that goad by clearly tagging as such the low quality advice
he often provides.
Dec 25 '07 #34

P: n/a
In article <m%6cj.3148$nh7.1171@trnddc01>,
James Kuyper <ja*********@verizon.netwrote:
>ym******@gmail.com wrote:
>On Dec 24, 3:51 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>>ymunt...@gmail.com said:

<snip>

What he said in no way contradicts "c.l.c
needs to relax a but from some of the pedantry being enforced by
a small but vocal group".
Are you saying that you would prefer the group to lower the quality of its
advice?

If I understand your question correctly, my answer is "no".

Are you saying that fighting with Jacob Navia is "quality"?

No, it's one method, among many, for trying to achieve quality control.
It achieves that goad by clearly tagging as such the low quality advice
he often provides.
Oh, the irony...

Dec 25 '07 #35

P: n/a
jacob navia wrote:
....
That is ridiculous. I could also argue that RH exploits this group
commercially since the fact of him being the guru here promotes his book
and he earns money with it.
Let's compare. How many messages from Richard Heathfield even mention
his book, much less promote it? The only reason I was even aware of his
authorship was the fact that someone else mentioned it, and he responded.

How often have you resisted the temptation to mention lcc-win? I've seen
dozens, possibly hundreds of cases where you failed this temptation just
in the short time I've been closely monitoring this group.

Dec 25 '07 #36

P: n/a
James Kuyper wrote:
ym******@gmail.com wrote:
>On Dec 24, 3:51 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>>ymunt...@gmail.com said:

<snip>

What he said in no way contradicts "c.l.c
needs to relax a but from some of the pedantry being enforced by
a small but vocal group".
Are you saying that you would prefer the group to lower the quality
of its
advice?

If I understand your question correctly, my answer is "no".

Are you saying that fighting with Jacob Navia is "quality"?

No, it's one method, among many, for trying to achieve quality control.
It achieves that goad by clearly tagging as such the low quality advice
he often provides.
Even if you repeat that lie a thousand times it doesn't make
it true...

Bad quality means that I very often ANSWER the questions posed instead
of saying like many of the regulars

"go away"...

You do not cite any examples, but it is obvious that I have a different
view point than many here. That makes it for "bad advice" in your
opinion.

IN YOUR OPINION!
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Dec 25 '07 #37

P: n/a
James Kuyper wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
...
>That is ridiculous. I could also argue that RH exploits this group
commercially since the fact of him being the guru here promotes his book
and he earns money with it.

Let's compare. How many messages from Richard Heathfield even mention
his book, much less promote it? The only reason I was even aware of his
authorship was the fact that someone else mentioned it, and he responded.

How often have you resisted the temptation to mention lcc-win? I've seen
dozens, possibly hundreds of cases where you failed this temptation just
in the short time I've been closely monitoring this group.
And you are not done yet!

I will go on and on.

Happy new year.
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Dec 25 '07 #38

P: n/a
On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 15:29:38 +0000
Masood <ma**********@nospam.comwrote:
I know that this topic may inflame the "C language Taleban", but is
there any prospect of some of the neat features of C++ getting
incorporated in C? No I am not talking out the OO stuff. I am
talking about the non-OO stuff, that seems to be handled much more
elegantly in C++, as compared to C. For example new & delete,
references, consts, declaring variables just before use etc.
No, they will not.
I am asking this question with a vested interest. I would really like
to use these features in my C programs.
Use C++.
Masood
You are trolling!

---
Rico Secada <co******@it.dk>
Dec 25 '07 #39

P: n/a
Masood wrote:
I know that this topic may inflame the "C language Taleban", but is
there any prospect of some of the neat features of C++ getting
incorporated in C? No I am not talking out the OO stuff. I am talking
about the non-OO stuff, that seems to be handled much more elegantly in
C++, as compared to C. For example new & delete, references, consts,
declaring variables just before use etc.

I am asking this question with a vested interest. I would really like
to use these features in my C programs.

Masood
As you have seen, many people here were upset.

The compiler system lcc-win implements several of the improvements
of C++ within a purely C framework.
o operator overloading
o references
o default function arguments
o overloaded functions

It presents also other improvements like a garbage collector, 352
bits floats, 128 bits integers etc

You can download it at the URL below.
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
Dec 25 '07 #40

P: n/a
On Dec 25, 10:52 am, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.comwrote:
Masood wrote:
I know that this topic may inflame the "C language Taleban", but is
there any prospect of some of the neat features of C++ getting
incorporated in C? No I am not talking out the OO stuff. I am talking
about the non-OO stuff, that seems to be handled much more elegantly in
C++, as compared to C. For example new & delete, references, consts,
declaring variables just before use etc.
I am asking this question with a vested interest. I would really like
to use these features in my C programs.
Masood

As you have seen, many people here were upset.

The compiler system lcc-win implements several of the improvements
of C++ within a purely C framework.
o operator overloading
o references
o default function arguments
o overloaded functions

It presents also other improvements like a garbage collector, 352
bits floats, 128 bits integers etc

You can download it at the URL below.
Could you stop it already?

Yevgen
Dec 25 '07 #41

P: n/a
On Tue, 25 Dec 2007 14:00:59 +0100, jacob navia wrote:
James Kuyper wrote:
>ym******@gmail.com wrote:

It achieves that goad by clearly tagging as such the low quality advice
he often provides.

Even if you repeat that lie a thousand times it doesn't make it true...

Bad quality means that I very often ANSWER the questions posed instead
of saying like many of the regulars
No, bad quality means
a) you post answers that are subtly wrong, and when the errors are
pointed out, you utterly refuse to accept that you may be wrong

b) you post answers to completely offtopic posts, which attract further
offtopic posts, and when asked not to do this, you rant that you're being
personally attacked via imaginary sock puppets and other such paranoid
bull.
You do not cite any examples, but it is obvious that I have a different
view point than many here. That makes it for "bad advice" in your
opinion.
What makes it bad advice is that its either wrong, or offtopic. Take your
pick.
IN YOUR OPINION!
No, based on fact. When you post correct, topical material you'll find
you attract less contumely.
Dec 25 '07 #42

P: n/a
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 20:25:47 -0800, ymuntyan wrote:
>And you're apparently the sort of person who will ignore the will of
the majority.

"Vote", huh? Now that was a vote.
Yup. People were invited to offer an opinion. Those who had an opinion
voted.
>Democracy, huh? If you want to call it
a vote, then call it what it is: a made up vote.
False. Every reader of CLC had a chance to vote. Many did so. The votes
of those people were counted and assigned.
So, that "majority" needs to be a majority.
It was. An electoral majority is defined in terms of those who vote.
Those who remain silent disenfranchise themselves and are not counted. If
you find this peculiar, I suggest a dose of real-world election study.
A rhetoric question, by the way: what part of "vocal minority" is not
understood?
The part where its relevant. All societies are run by vocal minorities.
And they're all self-selecting. In most cases their views are
representative of the wider population.

>>*plonk*

I suppose this means I am talking to a wall. Probably it's good.
Luckily for you, I forgot to plonk you. Its a mistake I've now rectified.
>Nobody's ever claimed they were cool or good. You made that up.

Richard loves to remind how he started that thread,
So what? How does that equate to claiming they're cool or good? You're
fully of horseshit.
Dec 25 '07 #43

P: n/a
James Kuyper wrote:
>
.... snip ...
>
I normally try to define each variable so that it has as small a
scope as possible (without gratuitous use of {} to create a smaller
scope just for the variable). I've personally found that this
greatly reduces my search times, because I don't have to search as
far to find it. Mixing declarations and statements allows me to
shorten the scope even more, which reduces it further.
Er, reducing function size does the same thing, and provides side
benefits. Use of the 'inline' marker can eliminate the object code
difference. :-)

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

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

Dec 25 '07 #44

P: n/a
Rico Secada wrote:
Masood <ma**********@nospam.comwrote:
>I know that this topic may inflame the "C language Taleban", but
is there any prospect of some of the neat features of C++ getting
incorporated in C? No I am not talking out the OO stuff. I am
talking about the non-OO stuff, that seems to be handled much more
elegantly in C++, as compared to C. For example new & delete,
references, consts, declaring variables just before use etc.

No, they will not.
>I am asking this question with a vested interest. I would really
like to use these features in my C programs.

Use C++.

You are trolling!
No, he is just offering sensible advice. If you want the
characteristics of a language, the usual suggestion is to use that
language. Not to diddle another, functional language, to have some
half cooked rotten adopted characteristics of the other language.

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

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

Dec 25 '07 #45

P: n/a
jacob navia <ja***@nospam.comwrites:
Masood wrote:
>I know that this topic may inflame the "C language Taleban", but is
there any prospect of some of the neat features of C++ getting
incorporated in C? No I am not talking out the OO stuff. I am talking
about the non-OO stuff, that seems to be handled much more elegantly in
C++, as compared to C. For example new & delete, references, consts,
declaring variables just before use etc.

I am asking this question with a vested interest. I would really like
to use these features in my C programs.

As you have seen, many people here were upset.
I hope you're aware that most of us were upset by the "C language
Taleban" insult, and not by the content of his question.
The compiler system lcc-win implements several of the improvements
of C++ within a purely C framework.
o operator overloading
o references
o default function arguments
o overloaded functions

It presents also other improvements like a garbage collector, 352
bits floats, 128 bits integers etc

You can download it at the URL below.
In other words, if you want a C-like language that supports operator
overloading, references, et al, then you can use C++ or you can use
lcc-win. Neither of this is really C (C doesn't have operator
overloading, for example). The major differences seen to be that (a)
lcc-win provides a smaller superset of C than C++ does, (b) lcc-win
probably goes to a bit more effort to maintain compatibility with
standard C, and (c) lcc-win is available only from a single vendor for
a single platform.

Perhaps using lcc-win is a good solution for some people, particularly
the OP. I personally wouldn't have much problem with you mentioning
it *if* you'd do the following each time: (a) acknowledge that it's
your work (and thus that you have an entirely understandable bias in
its favor), (b) acknowledge the set of platforms to which it's limited
(currently just MS Windows unless I've missed something), and (c)
suggest that further discussion should be directed to
comp.compilers.lcc. Don't assume that everyone is already aware of
this; not all readers have been following the newsgroup long enough to
know the background.

To be clear, this is not a set of rules that you must follow. This is
simply my opinion regarding what I think you should do. Others'
opinions will inevitably differ.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <ks***@mib.org>
[...]
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Dec 25 '07 #46

P: n/a
jacob navia <ja***@nospam.comwrites:
Masood wrote:
>I know that this topic may inflame the "C language Taleban", but is
there any prospect of some of the neat features of C++ getting
incorporated in C?
<snip>
The compiler system lcc-win implements several of the improvements
of C++ within a purely C framework.
<extension list snipped>

Do you have a plan to implement C99? A full C99 implementation would
be more useful to many than extensions that lock programmers in to
your compiler.

--
Ben.
Dec 25 '07 #47

P: n/a
CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrites:
Rico Secada wrote:
>Masood <ma**********@nospam.comwrote:
>>I know that this topic may inflame the "C language Taleban", but
is there any prospect of some of the neat features of C++ getting
incorporated in C? No I am not talking out the OO stuff. I am
talking about the non-OO stuff, that seems to be handled much more
elegantly in C++, as compared to C. For example new & delete,
references, consts, declaring variables just before use etc.

No, they will not.
>>I am asking this question with a vested interest. I would really
like to use these features in my C programs.

Use C++.

You are trolling!

No, he is just offering sensible advice.
Eh? What useful advice did Masood offer? I certainly missed it.

--
Ben.
Dec 25 '07 #48

P: n/a
On Dec 25, 1:57 pm, Mark McIntyre <markmcint...@spamcop.netwrote:
On Mon, 24 Dec 2007 20:25:47 -0800, ymuntyan wrote:
And you're apparently the sort of person who will ignore the will of
the majority.
"Vote", huh? Now that was a vote.

Yup. People were invited to offer an opinion. Those who had an opinion
voted.
Democracy, huh? If you want to call it
a vote, then call it what it is: a made up vote.

False. Every reader of CLC had a chance to vote. Many did so. The votes
of those people were counted and assigned.
Right, so you counted number of those who voted. I called
it a made-up vote because it didn't represent what you claim
it does represent: the opinions of people who care. You counted
number of people who cared to vote. See the difference? I, for
one, do not feel like playing democracy games on comp.lang.c,
but it doesn't mean I don't have an opinion.
You got to either have a very thick skin or be mad to
express your opinion if it in any (*any*) way conflicts
with the opinion of self-appointed majority. I must be
mad now, so am writing this letter to Santa.
>
So, that "majority" needs to be a majority.

It was. An electoral majority is defined in terms of those who vote.
Those who remain silent disenfranchise themselves and are not counted. If
you find this peculiar, I suggest a dose of real-world election study.
I suppose you don't see how funny it is.
A rhetoric question, by the way: what part of "vocal minority" is not
understood?

The part where its relevant. All societies are run by vocal minorities.
And they're all self-selecting. In most cases their views are
representative of the wider population.
And this.

Another funny thing, I am not for off-topic stuff, I don't
want C++ and sockets to be on-topic here, so I am not even
against so-called majority opinion. You just can't see that,
because the so-called world here is very simple: people are
either with you (and then they are automatically in the
"majority"), or they are not *with* you, and then they are
by definition
1) wrong;
2) in the minority;
3) your mortal enemies;
4) trolls;
5) etc.

I even don't like JN pushing his compiler here and there,
but I believe he causes MUCH less troubles here than those
"defending" comp.lang.c and the future of C programming
and all other important things in life. And if I got to
join a club here (or "majority-minority", or what you call
that), then I better be with Kenny, because he's way
more honest than you and some other so-called regulars[*].
>
>*plonk*
I suppose this means I am talking to a wall. Probably it's good.

Luckily for you, I forgot to plonk you. Its a mistake I've now rectified.
Very luckily for me, I am happy. And I was indeed right that I
replied. But now you got to really do the sweet act of *plonk*-ing,
otherwise it won't look good.
Nobody's ever claimed they were cool or good. You made that up.
Richard loves to remind how he started that thread,

So what? How does that equate to claiming they're cool or good? You're
fully of horseshit.
Well, perhaps I am full of shit. But I am not making stuff up.

Yevgen
[*] Keith, it wasn't about you. You are honest. You are just
either blind or a robot.
Dec 25 '07 #49

P: n/a
ym******@gmail.com wrote:
>
Right, so you counted number of those who voted. I called
it a made-up vote because it didn't represent what you claim
it does represent: the opinions of people who care. You counted
number of people who cared to vote. See the difference? I, for
one, do not feel like playing democracy games on comp.lang.c,
but it doesn't mean I don't have an opinion.
You had your chance, now you have to put up with the result. That's the
way democracy tends to work.

--
Ian Collins.
Dec 25 '07 #50

204 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.