Making C better (by borrowing from C++)

[Masood]

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

[jameskuyper]

Paul Hsieh wrote:

On Dec 25, 3:12 pm, James Kuyper <[e-mail]:

Paul Hsieh wrote:

On Dec 25, 5:13 am, James Kuyper <[e-mail]:

...

>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).

That's great for some minimalist sense while you are *writing* the
code, but it then becomes impossible to *read* the code afterwards.

My experience does not match your assertion.

Clearly not. I commonly have to read code, and I find it takes
several
times as long to read C++ code precisely because its so hard to track
down where a variable has been declared. Ordinarily, I would expect
that
if its not declared at the top of some enclosing scope then it is
either
a global or an attribute of "this" object. Except its not -- because
I
have to check every for(...) and in fact, every line of code (except
disjoint scopes) up until the start of the function.

The main advantage of C89 is that it really is just the top of each
enclosing scope and it can only be a local, a file scope static or an
extern global. Its typically extremely fast to scan for the first
two,
leaving the last check (looking through .h files) unnecessary. But
usually the difference between a file static/global and an extern
global
is not relevant to any given function -- you just want to know if a
variable is local. In C89, you know that with a quick scan by eye
with
a page-up keystroke or so.

With C99 we are now forced to scan every line of code up to the start
of each function.

Some will chime in and claim that you should be using some search
function in your editor or some source code browser. But that's
nonsense
as you typically can only do *one* of those at a time. I.e., you
might
be doing a "find next" on some important thing you are searching for
that
you want to retain the state for, and while you are doing so you want
to
check where a potential local is being declared without clearing your
search buffer. Furthermore, some editors (such as the Visual C++ text
editor) don't have a backwards search. This is not some fanciful
scenario
I am artificially constructing -- I *DO* this nearly every day.

If you know variable declarations are always at the top of a scope,
you can always find your local variables in a fast, deterministic
way. ...

Only if you know which scope it is defined in.

And just how deeply scoped do you write your code? There is an
explicit
syntactical pointer; namely the "{" character. Most people also
indent
their code to make finding these "{" characters visually obvious.

I personally indent consistently by 4 spaces, and make a point of
splitting the function if the required indentation is more than 1/2
the page width (40 characters =10 levels). I also try to avoid
having any function who's body extends over more than one full printed
page (80 characters wide, 66 lines long); that limit tends to
indirectly constrain my indentation much more strongly than the direct
limit I've specified above.

However, the key point is that I maintain a lot of code that was not
written according to these guidelines. I've got a fair amount of code
where a single function might contain hundreds and even thousands of
lines. If I had the resources to do so, I might consider re-writing
those changes. However, in the absence of any known actual bugs in the
code, it's pretty hard to justify applying my scarce resources to
perform aesthetically motivated fix-ups.

[...] Since scopes nest in C,
there's no way to be certain unless declarations are restricted not
merely to the top of the scope, but to the top of the function.

This is the very definition of pedantry. The problem of finding the
top
of a function is not significantly different from finding the set of
scope
beginnings up to the top of the function declaration. The depth of
your
scopes is typically O(log(lines in function)).

Nor it it very different from searching for previous definitions of
the identifier by name, which I've found to be a much quicker and more
reliable method.

[...] I would
argue against the "top of the function" solution, but since you don't
seem to be advocating it, I won't bother.

Since a large fraction of the code I've ever worked on was written by
other people, there's no guarantee that any given variable is declared
in any particular scope, no matter what I might prefer. I have to do
the same kind of backwards search to find the top of the right scope
that I would have to perform to find a declaration that's not at the top
of a scope, so I don't see how it saves me any trouble.

Search backwards through indents or "{"s is the same as scanning line
by
line to you?

Finding the indents or "{"s isn't sufficient; then you must still scan
line by line for the matching declaration; the context switch between
the two search modes costs at least as much as the nominally more
efficient mode saves; that's true whether using my eyes or using a
text editor.

....

The main problem with your approach is that the closest first use
might
be *wrong* since the local variable can be used early *and* late in a
function, in which case its got to be put into a high enough position
in an enclosing scope anyways:

type function (...) {
/* A */ ...
if () {
... /* Don't touch x */
}
... /* B */ ...
switch () {
... /* Don't touch x */
}
... /* C */ ...
for (/* D */ ...) {
/* E */
...
touch (&x); /* <-- Looking here */
...
}
...
return x; /* <-- Or looking here */
}

That's not a problem with my approach. My approach has never been
"smallest scope, regardless of whether or not it works". I've always
considered that it was implicitly clear that I was referring to the
smallest scope that is consistent with the actual use of the variable.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <47**************@nospam.com>,
jacob navia <ja***@nospam.orgwrote:
....

>OK OK. Agreed.

And giving away my software is not *really* a commercial activity.

Very indirectly it *can* be construed to that but it isn't. I am
financing this free service to C programmers since ten years,
and sales have never covered the expenses. To present me as a
"shrewd commercial guy" is just not true.

Jacob, Jacob. The "commercial" stuff is just a red herring here.
The fact is, they just don't like you. And they never will.
Note that some of them have even gone as far as to call you a "frog" in
print (generally, via sock puppet, to maintain denyability)...

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

I am
financing this free service to C programmers since ten years,
and sales have never covered the expenses. To present me as a
"shrewd commercial guy" is just not true.

Well, I can certainly accept that, at least as a possibility. But quite
seriously, you would do better to let other people recommend lcc-win32 for
you, rather than do it yourself.

Even if you believe 100% wholeheartedly that lcc-win32 is the right
solution for a particular problem (and, in fact, even if you're *right* to
believe that, as you may be, from time to time), the very fact that it is
you, the vendor, who recommends it is enough to make people question your
motives.

If, however, your product is recommended here not by you but by those who
have earned the respect of this group by virtue of having provided a great
deal of high quality C help over the years, such a recommendation would be
much more powerful. (Such recommendations may take some time to earn,
however, given the amount of hard work you've put into trashing your
reputation here over the years.)

No matter how honest you think you are, there are always going to be people
who suspect your motives. That's why it's best not to give such people any
ammunition at all.

--
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

[Keith Thompson]

Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:

Chris Hills said:

<snip>

>GCC is proprietary It has a license just like MS, Borland and others.

"Proprietary" means "of the nature of property; legally made only by a
person or body of persons having special rights, esp a patent or
trademark; pertaining to or belonging to the legal owner; (of a company,
etc) privately owned and run". Who do you think "owns" gcc?

The Free Software Foundation holds the copyright (try "gcc --version").

But surely this is off-topic. See misc.int-property and
gnu.misc.discuss for further flame-wars.

--
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"

[user923005]

On Dec 25, 3:12*pm, James Kuyper <[e-mail]:

Paul Hsieh wrote:

On Dec 25, 5:13 am, James Kuyper <[e-mail]:

...

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).

That's great for some minimalist sense while you are *writing* the
code, but it then becomes impossible to *read* the code afterwards.

My experience does not match your assertion.

If you know variable declarations are always at the top of a scope,
you can always find your local variables in a fast, deterministic
way. *...

Only if you know which scope it is defined in. Since scopes nest in C,
there's no way to be certain unless declarations are restricted not
merely to the top of the scope, but to the top of the function. I would
argue against the "top of the function" solution, but since you don't
seem to be advocating it, I won't bother.

Since a large fraction of the code I've ever worked on was written by
other people, there's no guarantee that any given variable is declared
in any particular scope, no matter what I might prefer. *I have to do
the same kind of backwards search to find the top of the right scope
that I would have to perform to find a declaration that's not at the top
of a scope, so I don't see how it saves me any trouble.

... The "gratuitous" {} 's give you the required indication to find
these declaration points easily.

They also make the program harder to read and comprehend, in my experience..

I have found that in some cases using {} to create a new block is very
annoying.
I have found that in some cases using {} to create a new block is
wonderful.
Like every other controversial construct (e.g. goto, continue, break)
it can be good or bad, depending on the exact situation.

A microscopic side benefit is that it can reduce peak automatic
storage need.
Of course, it would be a terrible mistake to program using them for
that reason alone.

IMO-YMMV.

[user923005]

On Dec 26, 6:24*am, Chris Hills <[e-mail]:

In article <fkpdlq$[e-mail]>, jacob navia <[e-mail]>
writes

[e-mail] 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.

Bloody good point! I had not thought of it that way. *However as Jacob's
compiler can be obtained for Free and Richards book can not Richard is
more commercial than Jacob :-)

(get out of that one.....)

The book is out of print.

[Antoninus Twink]

On 26 Dec 2007 at 20:07, Richard Heathfield turned his sarcasm once more
against his bete noire and said:

No matter how honest you think you are, there are always going to be
people who suspect your motives.

Indeed there are. After all, you and your sycophantic cronies will
probably still be posting to this group on the day the ship finally goes
down, and as your implacable and irrational hostility to Jacob has only
kept burning ever brighter over several years now, there seems little
chance that you'll ever give him a fair chance and stop "suspecting his
motives".

[user923005]

On Dec 26, 7:21*am, Chris Hills <[e-mail]:

In article <fktqgt$[e-mail]>, Honest Jon <[e-mail]

On 26/12/2007 14:22, Chris Hills wrote:

In article <[e-mail]>, Richard Heathfield
<[e-mail]
If commercial exploitation of comp.lang.c is not opposed,
* Jacobs compilers are as free as GCC compilers. (And the MS &
Borland ones)

You are mistaken. The gcc compilers are free software. MS, Borland and
lcc are all properietary software. In fact, you don't even have the
freedom to *run* Jacob's compiler for commercial use, still less view
and modify the source and all the other rights *everyone* has under the
standard meaning of "free".

GCC is proprietary It has a license just like MS, Borland and others.

Compiler wars are just like OS wars (or your garden-variety wars with
machine guns).
They are started for some reason that nobody can recall.
They expend plenty of resources and get lots of people angry, even
though they don't remember why they are mad.
In the end, when we count the bodies, we usually find that the ones
who 'expended the most' "won".

There is no such thing as free software, it's a myth[*]. However,
there is always a tool to do the job. Sometimes it costs money and
sometimes it does not.
[*] The time and labor used to create the software cost someone
something, even for public domain software. Anything with a value has
a price. Whether or not it every comes out of my pocket is another
thing. And most software (*anything not explicitly public domain*)
has a license that says how you can or cannot use it. Restrictions
are a kind of cost. At any rate, I see no reason to quibble about
it. I don't really mind Jacob touting his compiler. It's not like
he's spamming the group. I do think that he is deliberately thick and
likes to start arguments. But I am guilty of that from time to time
as well.

IMO-YMMV

[Richard Heathfield]

Keith Thompson said:

Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:

>Chris Hills said:

<snip>

>>GCC is proprietary It has a license just like MS, Borland and others.

"Proprietary" means "of the nature of property; legally made only by a
person or body of persons having special rights, esp a patent or
trademark; pertaining to or belonging to the legal owner; (of a company,
etc) privately owned and run". Who do you think "owns" gcc?

The Free Software Foundation holds the copyright (try "gcc --version").

That just gives the version number; it doesn't mention copyright or
ownership (which need not be the same thing).

<shrug>

But surely this is off-topic.

The whole thread is off-topic. :-)

--
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

[Keith Thompson]

Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrites:

In article <Gq******************************@bt.com>, Richard
Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites

[...]

>>Since I've never, ever promoted the book here, the claim is without merit.

Fair enough.

BTW What is "the book" called? Come on it's Christmas and I have
asked directly so give it a plug. Your book gets mentioned every now
and again so you may as well give the full information for those who
don't know.

Since Richard is being modest, it's "C Unleashed"; amazon.com shows
several new and used copies available, at prices ranging from $20 to
$120 (yoiks!).

--
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"

[=?UTF-8?q?Harald_van_D=C4=B3k?=]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 20:32:09 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

Keith Thompson said:

>Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:

>>Who do you think "owns" gcc?

The Free Software Foundation holds the copyright (try "gcc --version").

That just gives the version number; it doesn't mention copyright or
ownership (which need not be the same thing).

This is the output of gcc --version for one installation I use:

2.95.3

This is the output of gcc --version for another installation I use:

gcc (GCC) 3.4.6
Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR
PURPOSE.

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <pt******************************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:

>jacob navia said:

>I am
financing this free service to C programmers since ten years,
and sales have never covered the expenses. To present me as a
"shrewd commercial guy" is just not true.

Well, I can certainly accept that, at least as a possibility. But quite
seriously, you would do better to let other people recommend lcc-win32 for
you, rather than do it yourself.

A strong recommendation of/for sock-puppetry, from an experienced hand.

Good show, old man!

[Keith Thompson]

Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrites:

In article <5t*************@mid.individual.net>, Ian Collins
<ia******@hotmail.comwrites

>>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.

The problem is that the vast majority who would have voted have long
since been chased off by the Language Taliban

Chris, I've usually found you to be a sensible person. You disappoint
me. Will you *please* stop using that deeply offensive term? I've
always been willing to discuss things with you; I'd truly hate for
that to end. (And yes, given the context, I presume that it's
directed at me and others.)

Now that I've made it clear that the term "Taliban" offends me, I'm
sure the trolls will use it at every opportunity. I expect better of
you.

--
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"

[Eric Sosman]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

[...]
The whole thread is off-topic. :-)

Well, no: Masood asked why C doesn't have "neat features"
of C++, which seems topical enough.[*] Unfortunately, he asked
his question in a deliberately offensive way, and the thread
frayed almost immediately despite a few attempts at answers.
[*] "Why can't a woman
Be more like a man?"
-- H. Higgins

--
Eric Sosman
es*****@ieee-dot-org.invalid

[Ben Pfaff]

jacob navia <ja***@nospam.comwrites:

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.

I have never seen Richard Heathfield promote his book here.
Every time it's come up, to the best of my recollection, it's
been someone else who brought it up.
--
char a[]="\n .CJacehknorstu";int putchar(int);int main(void){unsigned long b[]
={0x67dffdff,0x9aa9aa6a,0xa77ffda9,0x7da6aa6a,0xa6 7f6aaa,0xaa9aa9f6,0x11f6},*p
=b,i=24;for(;p+=!*p;*p/=4)switch(0[p]&3)case 0:{return 0;for(p--;i--;i--)case+
2:{i++;if(i)break;else default:continue;if(0)case 1:putchar(a[i&15]);break;}}}

[CBFalconer]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Chris Hills said:

<snip>

>How come you are on line on boxing day?

Because I promised my wife I wouldn't touch the damn thing on
Christmas Day. :-)

Boy, have you ever piled up a set of points for the next year!

--
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

[CBFalconer]

jacob navia wrote:

Chris Hills wrote:

>jacob navia wrote:

>>Most of the C library is "considered deprecated".

Since when?

Since Microsoft got that technical report with its safe library,
all standard functions like fopen printf, etc provoke a warning.

You seem incapable of telling MS FUD from fact. The C library is
NOT deprecated. Try reading the C standard.

--
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

[CBFalconer]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Chris Hills said:

.... snip ...

>

>Incidentally most of the work I am involved in is high integrity
or high reliability. Portability is not a major concern. In fact
I subject that portability is a minority concern.

I don't know about you, but I think every single question deserves
the best possible answer. If the question is about ISO C, the
chances are very high that the best answer you'll get anywhere on
Usenet can be found right here in comp.lang.c - but if the question
is about something else, the chances are very high that you'll get
a better answer in a group where the question is topical. Platform-
specific questions get better answers elsenet.

I am glad you have answered most of CHs points, and I don't have
to. However, I should mention that use of standard C constructs
will generally result in more reliability and integrity than will
reliance on single vendor sourceless systems.

--
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

[CBFalconer]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Chris Hills said:

.... snip ...

>
He's also ignoring the fact that the real guru here is Chris Torek,
who knows several hundred times as much about C as I will ever know.

>However as Jacob's compiler can be obtained for Free and Richards
book can not Richard is more commercial than Jacob :-)

(get out of that one.....)

Since I've never, ever promoted the book here, the claim is without
merit.

There are several items I wrote some time ago, some as far back as
the '50s. Like "Richards' book" they are out of print. I see no
great point in urging you all look them up and generate a monstrous
groundswell of demand for them. If you did, I doubt that I would
profit. I suspect this applies equally to Richard.

--
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

[CBFalconer]

jacob navia wrote:

Malcolm McLean wrote:

.... snip ...

>

>gcc is open source and free for any use, so is freer than lcc-win,

No. If you want to use gcc source code you have to put YOUR
application under the GPL. And if you do not want to put YOUR
application under the GPL you have to pay BIG bucks to Red Hat.

Wrong. You can use gcc freely to develop anything at all. What
you can't do is incorporate GNU source code in your devopment
without licensing that development under GPL.

--
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

[CBFalconer]

Charlton Wilbur wrote:

Malcolm McLean <re*******@btinternet.comwrites:

>I've got very strong views on car use. However I may not
set up my own referendum, [...]

Gordon Brown, however, can call a referendum, because he is man
in charge of the government. If it came out against supermarkets
with car parks, the case for closing them down would be
overwhelming.

The point is you have to have legitimate authority to make laws.

Governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed.
We had a discussion about this, and found that the majority of the
people who cared enough to state an opinion preferred limiting the
discussion here to portable standard C, as defined by C99, C89, or
K&R.

What is so hard to understand about that?

Not much, to most. However there is a small and noisy group here
who seem to feel that topicality is strictly defined by their urges
at any moment. I believe the psychiatrists etc. have a name for
that type of group.

--
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

[CBFalconer]

jacob navia wrote:

Keith Thompson wrote:

.... snip ...

>

>I wouldn't mind seeing a mechanism for adding new numeric types
without having to make changes to the language, but I don't
believe operator overloading alone will do the job.

It does. I have implemented the complex numbers with it, and
the qfloat extension.

How does it operate on machines with 1's complement and sign
magnitude numeric expression? What about machines with 9 bit
chars, or with 16 bit integers?

Note that I am not even asking about generalization to the extent
permitted by the C standard.

--
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

[CBFalconer]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Keith Thompson said:

<snip>

>In any case, Chuck is of course correct that operator overloading is
not part of C

If he means user-defined operator overloading (which he has not made
clear), he is correct. But operators are overloaded routinely within C.
Even the humble + operator has many meanings; not only does it have a
variable number of operands, but the types of those operands are by no
means fixed, so we have "+ that adds two int types; + that adds an int
to a double; + that adds two doubles; + that adds a pointer and an
int", and so on. And don't get me started on * ! :-)

I don't recognize that last operator.

--
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

[Ben Pfaff]

CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrites:

jacob navia wrote:

>Chris Hills wrote:

>>jacob navia wrote:

Most of the C library is "considered deprecated".

Since when?

Since Microsoft got that technical report with its safe library,
all standard functions like fopen printf, etc provoke a warning.

You seem incapable of telling MS FUD from fact. The C library is
NOT deprecated. Try reading the C standard.

It's a matter of point of view. Microsoft can consider the C
library, or portions of it, deprecated if they want to, and it
seems that they do. The question is really whether the C
standards committee considers it deprecated. The answer is, I
presume, "no".
--
"Your correction is 100% correct and 0% helpful. Well done!"
--Richard Heathfield

[Richard]

Ian Collins <ia******@hotmail.comwrites:

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.

He, and others, do not have to put up with anything you seem obsessed
with foisting on them. Others can post or reply to whatever C related
questions they see fit.

[Richard]

Mark McIntyre <ma**********@spamcop.netwrites:

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?

The truthful bit? As in there is no truthful bit.

[jacob navia]

CBFalconer wrote:

jacob navia wrote:

>Chris Hills wrote:

>>jacob navia wrote:

Most of the C library is "considered deprecated".
Since when?

Since Microsoft got that technical report with its safe library,
all standard functions like fopen printf, etc provoke a warning.

You seem incapable of telling MS FUD from fact. The C library is
NOT deprecated. Try reading the C standard.

You have reading problems Chuck?

I said that they provoke a warning in Microsoft compiler of course,
not that the C library is deprecated.
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[jacob navia]

CBFalconer wrote:

jacob navia wrote:

>Keith Thompson wrote:

... snip ...

>>I wouldn't mind seeing a mechanism for adding new numeric types
without having to make changes to the language, but I don't
believe operator overloading alone will do the job.

It does. I have implemented the complex numbers with it, and
the qfloat extension.

How does it operate on machines with 1's complement and sign
magnitude numeric expression? What about machines with 9 bit
chars, or with 16 bit integers?

Complex numbers require the four operations and floating point.
If the machine can do that it can do complex numbers.
If it can't it can't and the C99 implementation will not
run either.
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[Richard Harter]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:20:19 -0500, CBFalconer
<cb********@yahoo.comwrote:

>jacob navia wrote:

>Malcolm McLean wrote:

... snip ...

>>

>>gcc is open source and free for any use, so is freer than lcc-win,

No. If you want to use gcc source code you have to put YOUR
application under the GPL. And if you do not want to put YOUR
application under the GPL you have to pay BIG bucks to Red Hat.

Wrong. You can use gcc freely to develop anything at all. What
you can't do is incorporate GNU source code in your devopment
without licensing that development under GPL.

That's what he said: I quote (requote if you like):
"If you want to use gcc source code you have to put YOUR
application under the GPL."

I dunno about paying big bucks to Red Hat about getting around
GPL - sounds fishy to me - but your "correction" doesn't mention
that. You just reasserted what Jacob already said.

[jacob navia]

Richard Harter wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:20:19 -0500, CBFalconer
<cb********@yahoo.comwrote:

>jacob navia wrote:

>>Malcolm McLean wrote:

... snip ...

>>>gcc is open source and free for any use, so is freer than lcc-win,
No. If you want to use gcc source code you have to put YOUR
application under the GPL. And if you do not want to put YOUR
application under the GPL you have to pay BIG bucks to Red Hat.

Wrong. You can use gcc freely to develop anything at all. What
you can't do is incorporate GNU source code in your devopment
without licensing that development under GPL.

That's what he said: I quote (requote if you like):
"If you want to use gcc source code you have to put YOUR
application under the GPL."

I dunno about paying big bucks to Red Hat about getting around
GPL - sounds fishy to me - but your "correction" doesn't mention
that. You just reasserted what Jacob already said.

Cygnus corp made big bucks by selling versions
of gcc to people and allowing them with big
license fees to get away without disclosing their source.

They were a profitable company based exclusively on gcc
sales. They were bought by RedHat.

Note that I am not against RedHat making money. I just
did not want to work for them FOR FREE.

The problem with GNU from a developer viewpoint is that you toil and
work for years to do something, and somebody else sells it for
a profit without giving you a penny. This is a personal choice,
I do respect people that work for RedHat and develop device drivers
and compilers and stuff without being paid at all.

I just do not want to do that myself. I give my work away too,
but I am the owner of my work. Not somebody else.

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[CBFalconer]

user923005 wrote:

>

.... snip ...

I don't really mind Jacob touting his compiler. It's not like
he's spamming the group. I do think that he is deliberately thick
and likes to start arguments. But I am guilty of that from time
to time as well.

Probably the best evaluation yet. BTW, he has admitted that his
'commercial' work doesn't support his 'free' system. Once upon a
time he had the source available. Maybe if he went back to that he
would get proper corrections and bug fixes.

--
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

[CBFalconer]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Keith Thompson said:

.... snip ...

>>
The Free Software Foundation holds the copyright
(try "gcc --version").

That just gives the version number; it doesn't mention copyright
or ownership (which need not be the same thing).

Quoted to avoid line wrap:

[1] c:\c\hashlib>gcc --version
gcc.exe (GCC) 3.2.1
Copyright (C) 2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

--
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

[Richard Heathfield]

Harald van D?k said:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 20:32:09 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

>Keith Thompson said:

>>Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:
Who do you think "owns" gcc?

The Free Software Foundation holds the copyright (try "gcc --version").

That just gives the version number; it doesn't mention copyright or
ownership (which need not be the same thing).

This is the output of gcc --version for one installation I use:

2.95.3

This is the output of gcc --version for another installation I use:

gcc (GCC) 3.4.6
Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

I believe you. Nevertheless, I get no such notice when I run gcc --version.

--
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

[Flash Gordon]

jacob navia wrote, On 26/12/07 22:43:

Richard Harter wrote:

>On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:20:19 -0500, CBFalconer
<cb********@yahoo.comwrote:

>>jacob navia wrote:
Malcolm McLean wrote:

... snip ...
gcc is open source and free for any use, so is freer than lcc-win,
No. If you want to use gcc source code you have to put YOUR
application under the GPL. And if you do not want to put YOUR
application under the GPL you have to pay BIG bucks to Red Hat.
Wrong. You can use gcc freely to develop anything at all. What
you can't do is incorporate GNU source code in your devopment
without licensing that development under GPL.

That's what he said: I quote (requote if you like):
"If you want to use gcc source code you have to put YOUR
application under the GPL."

I dunno about paying big bucks to Red Hat about getting around
GPL - sounds fishy to me - but your "correction" doesn't mention
that. You just reasserted what Jacob already said.

Cygnus corp made big bucks by selling versions
of gcc to people and allowing them with big
license fees to get away without disclosing their source.

They were a profitable company based exclusively on gcc
sales. They were bought by RedHat.

I don't know about when Cygnus ran it, but certainly when I started
using it what you are saying is completely wrong. The item with a
restrictive license was (and I believe still is) cygwin.dll which is the
*nix compatibility layer. If you application links against it and you
distribute it you either have to GPL you application or buy a license.
However, if you do not link against cygwin.dll (for example by telling
gcc to work like it does in the MinGW environment (by following the
instructions Cygwin provides) then you can sell your application as a
closed source applciation.

In other words you are mostly wrong.

Note that I am not against RedHat making money. I just
did not want to work for them FOR FREE.

When did you last see RedHat employees or shareholders posting here
advocating RedHat?

The problem with GNU from a developer viewpoint is that you toil and
work for years to do something, and somebody else sells it for
a profit without giving you a penny. This is a personal choice,
I do respect people that work for RedHat and develop device drivers
and compilers and stuff without being paid at all.

I just do not want to do that myself. I give my work away too,
but I am the owner of my work. Not somebody else.

Most of the regulars you complain about certainly have not said you
should not sell your work. I had sympathy for you earlier in this thread
(and posted to that effect) but you have lost it by repeatedly
misrepresenting what others are saying.
--
Flash Gordon

[user923005]

On Dec 26, 2:43*pm, jacob navia <[e-mail]:

Richard Harter wrote:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 15:20:19 -0500, CBFalconer
<[e-mail]:

jacob navia wrote:
Malcolm McLean wrote:

... snip ...
gcc is open source and free for any use, so is freer than lcc-win,
No. If you want to use gcc source code you have to put YOUR
application under the GPL. And if you do not want to put YOUR
application under the GPL you have to pay BIG bucks to Red Hat.
Wrong. *You can use gcc freely to develop anything at all. *What
you can't do is incorporate GNU source code in your devopment
without licensing that development under GPL.

That's what he said: I quote (requote if you like):
"If you want to use gcc source code you have to put YOUR
application under the GPL."

I dunno about paying big bucks to Red Hat about getting around
GPL - sounds fishy to me - but your "correction" doesn't mention
that. *You just reasserted what Jacob already said.

Cygnus corp made big bucks by selling versions
of gcc to people and allowing them with big
license fees to get away without disclosing their source.

Cygnus had full disclosure of their source. If you mean the customer,
then that is just the dual licence that lots of companies use (e.g.
MySQL).

They were a profitable company based exclusively on gcc
sales. They were bought by RedHat.

They offered a complete POSIX layer (that even did fork() on
Windows). GCC was less than 1% of the total software volume. I guess
that you have never actually used the Cygnus installer.

Note that I am not against RedHat making money. I just
did not want to work for them FOR FREE.

I agree that we should all have this choice.

The problem with GNU from a developer viewpoint is that you toil and
work for years to do something, and somebody else sells it for
a profit without giving you a penny. This is a personal choice,
I do respect people that work for RedHat and develop device drivers
and compilers and stuff without being paid at all.

That is one possibility. And yet Redhat has tons of developers and
they all get paid. So the "no pay" only happens sometimes -- and then
it is voluntary. I have done free work for GPL projects on many
occasions, though I greatly prefer the BSD style license for open
source. But that is just one person's opinion and worth about what
you paid for it.

I just do not want to do that myself. I give my work away too,
but I am the owner of my work. Not somebody else.

No argument there (unless the license of tools or libraries that you
are using says otherwise).

[Richard Harter]

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:07:03 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:

>Harald van D?k said:

>On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 20:32:09 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:

>>Keith Thompson said:
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:
Who do you think "owns" gcc?

The Free Software Foundation holds the copyright (try "gcc --version").

That just gives the version number; it doesn't mention copyright or
ownership (which need not be the same thing).

This is the output of gcc --version for one installation I use:

2.95.3

This is the output of gcc --version for another installation I use:

gcc (GCC) 3.4.6
Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

I believe you. Nevertheless, I get no such notice when I run gcc --version.

Odd. I have 3.3.4 courtesy of djgpp and I get it. Did you by
any chance modify the source?

[Keith Thompson]

cr*@tiac.net (Richard Harter) writes:

On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 23:07:03 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:

>>Harald van D?k said:

>>On Wed, 26 Dec 2007 20:32:09 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
Keith Thompson said:
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:
>Who do you think "owns" gcc?
>
The Free Software Foundation holds the copyright (try "gcc --version").

That just gives the version number; it doesn't mention copyright or
ownership (which need not be the same thing).

This is the output of gcc --version for one installation I use:

2.95.3

This is the output of gcc --version for another installation I use:

gcc (GCC) 3.4.6
Copyright (C) 2006 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

I believe you. Nevertheless, I get no such notice when I run gcc --version.

Odd. I have 3.3.4 courtesy of djgpp and I get it. Did you by
any chance modify the source?

The output of "gcc --version" was expanded in version 3.something.
I believe Richard uses a fairly old version.

--
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"

[Paul Hsieh]

On Dec 26, 10:39 am, [e-mail] wrote:

However, the key point is that I maintain a lot of code that was not
written according to these guidelines. I've got a fair amount of code
where a single function might contain hundreds and even thousands of
lines.

Yeah, and how much nested scope does that translate to? Remember its
O(*LOG*(#lines of code)).

[...] If I had the resources to do so, I might consider re-writing
those changes. However, in the absence of any known actual bugs in the
code, it's pretty hard to justify applying my scarce resources to
perform aesthetically motivated fix-ups.

Well more importantly what if there is *ONE* bug in there. Would you
rather have your scarce resources scan O(#lines) or O(*LOG*(#lines))
for where declarations are, to see if there is a simple "return
pointer to a local" kind of error?

[...] Since scopes nest in C,
there's no way to be certain unless declarations are restricted not
merely to the top of the scope, but to the top of the function.

This is the very definition of pedantry. The problem of finding the
top of a function is not significantly different from finding the set
of scope beginnings up to the top of the function declaration. The
depth of your scopes is typically O(log(lines in function)).

Nor it it very different from searching for previous definitions of
the identifier by name, which I've found to be a much quicker and more
reliable method.

Really? Personally, I cannot even make that work. VC++'s editor does
not have a backward search, nor does it have Perl compatible RE
search, nor does it have simple semantics for ping-pong buffering
between two different searches. But in C89, its hardly needed as an
eyeball scan is quick and usually sufficient.

[...] I would
argue against the "top of the function" solution, but since you don't
seem to be advocating it, I won't bother.

Since a large fraction of the code I've ever worked on was written by
other people, there's no guarantee that any given variable is declared
in any particular scope, no matter what I might prefer. I have to do
the same kind of backwards search to find the top of the right scope
that I would have to perform to find a declaration that's not at the top
of a scope, so I don't see how it saves me any trouble.

Search backwards through indents or "{"s is the same as scanning line
by
line to you?

Finding the indents or "{"s isn't sufficient; then you must still scan
line by line for the matching declaration; the context switch between
the two search modes costs at least as much as the nominally more
efficient mode saves; that's true whether using my eyes or using a
text editor.

WTF?!?! You do a "context switch" *BETWEEN EACH PAIR OF LINES* in C99
(and C++). You only do so between scope starts, declarations and
statements, in C89. You are not arguing honestly.

The main problem with your approach is that the closest first use
might be *wrong* since the local variable can be used early *and* late in a
function, in which case its got to be put into a high enough position
in an enclosing scope anyways:

type function (...) {
/* A */ ...
if () {
... /* Don't touch x */
}
... /* B */ ...
switch () {
... /* Don't touch x */
}
... /* C */ ...
for (/* D */ ...) {
/* E */
...
touch (&x); /* <-- Looking here */
...
}
...
return x; /* <-- Or looking here */
}

That's not a problem with my approach. My approach has never been
"smallest scope, regardless of whether or not it works". I've always
considered that it was implicitly clear that I was referring to the
smallest scope that is consistent with the actual use of the variable.

Yes, I was not accusing you of writing wrong code -- that's precisely
the problem! *Correctness* dictates where you put your declaration,
not some aspiration that your declarations will be close to all its
usages. And that means the above example becomes a very typical
situation.

--
Paul Hsieh
http://www.pobox.com/~qed/
http://bstring.sf.net/

[Malcolm McLean]

"Chris Hills" <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrote in message

>
I think there was a a unifying moment in the early 1990's and then the ISO
panels screwed it. Next year ( in a couple of days) we will be a decade
on from the last C standard and still virtually no one is really using it.

The standard wasn't accepted. Which was a disaster all round, because it
then makes it harder to try again.

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

[Masood]

On 26/12/2007 20:55, Keith Thompson wrote:

Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.orgwrites:

>>In article <5t*************@mid.individual.net>, Ian Collins
<ia******@hotmail.comwrites

>>>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.

The problem is that the vast majority who would have voted have long
since been chased off by the Language Taliban

Chris, I've usually found you to be a sensible person. You disappoint
me. Will you *please* stop using that deeply offensive term? I've
always been willing to discuss things with you; I'd truly hate for
that to end. (And yes, given the context, I presume that it's
directed at me and others.)

Now that I've made it clear that the term "Taliban" offends me, I'm
sure the trolls will use it at every opportunity. I expect better of
you.

Hi Keith,

I didn't mean to offend anyone with the word "Taleban" - I apologize if
you took offense.

I thought it was just a good description - I think it will be clear to
most people that the features a "C Taleban" shares with an "Afghanistan
Taleban" are fundamentalism and extremely-held beliefs, rather than any
violence and suchlike.

Best.

[Keith Thompson]

Masood <ma**********@nospam.comwrites:
[...]

Hi Keith,

I didn't mean to offend anyone with the word "Taleban" - I apologize
if you took offense.

Thank you, apology accepted.

(I find it difficult to understand how referring to someone as
"Taleban" could be inoffensive, but I accept that you didn't intend to
offend.)

--
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"

[Malcolm McLean]

"Keith Thompson" <ks***@mib.orgwrote in message

>
(I find it difficult to understand how referring to someone as
"Taleban" could be inoffensive, but I accept that you didn't intend to
offend.)

If you write embedded timers for suicide bombs then presumably you're not
offended by being referred to as the "C language Taleban".

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

[James Kuyper]

jacob navia wrote:

CBFalconer wrote:

>jacob navia wrote:

>>Chris Hills wrote:
jacob navia wrote:

Most of the C library is "considered deprecated".

....

You have reading problems Chuck?

I said that they provoke a warning in Microsoft compiler of course,
not that the C library is deprecated.

Then the above is a mis-quotation? It certainly matches the version of
your message that is available through both my ISP's news server and
through groups.google.com.

[jacob navia]

James Kuyper wrote:

jacob navia wrote:

>CBFalconer wrote:

>>jacob navia wrote:
Chris Hills wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
>
>Most of the C library is "considered deprecated".

...

>You have reading problems Chuck?

I said that they provoke a warning in Microsoft compiler of course,
not that the C library is deprecated.

Then the above is a mis-quotation? It certainly matches the version of
your message that is available through both my ISP's news server and
through groups.google.com.

WE WERE SPEAKING ABOUT THE MICROSOFT C COMPILER WHEN USED FOR
COMPILING C PROGRAMS.

That sentence refers to that compiler and its usage for C.

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[James Kuyper]

Masood wrote:
....

I didn't mean to offend anyone with the word "Taleban" - I apologize if
you took offense.

I can't imagine how you intended it to be taken as anything other than
offensive; being offensive strikes me as the whole point of such an
reference.

Please note that "I apologize if you took offense" isn't really a true
apology. It implies that the real blame is on Keith (and, by
implication, myself and others) for being offended, and that you still
don't understand that it was in fact offensive.

I would prefer to hear from you something along the line of "I apologize
for inadvertently writing something offensive.

I thought it was just a good description - I think it will be clear to
most people that the features a "C Taleban" shares with an "Afghanistan
Taleban" are fundamentalism and extremely-held beliefs, rather than any
violence and suchlike.

Then choose for your comparison some group other than the Taliban. The
Taliban's claim to fame is not their fundamentalism, which is
unfortunately common throughout the world. They're famous for the
violence and oppression with which they impose their understanding of
God's will on others.

The people you've designated at "the C Taleban" don't have any power
whatsoever to impose their understanding of the ISO committee's will on
anybody; I'm not saying that I know for certain that none of them would
abuse such power if they had it; but they don't have it, so it's a moot
point.

[James Kuyper]

Paul Hsieh wrote:
....

Really? Personally, I cannot even make that work. VC++'s editor does
not have a backward search, nor does it have Perl compatible RE
search, nor does it have simple semantics for ping-pong buffering
between two different searches. But in C89, its hardly needed as an
eyeball scan is quick and usually sufficient.

I've been programming computers for 30 years now, and I have never seen
a text editor that couldn't do a reverse search. Wow! It should be in a
museum somewhere; not on your computer.

....

WTF?!?! You do a "context switch" *BETWEEN EACH PAIR OF LINES* in C99
(and C++). You only do so between scope starts, declarations and
statements, in C89. You are not arguing honestly.

In my way of handling it, I am always looking for declarations of an
identifier by searching for the identifier name. I'm never searching for
'{' characters, so I never need to switch between the two search modes.

....

>That's not a problem with my approach. My approach has never been
"smallest scope, regardless of whether or not it works". I've always
considered that it was implicitly clear that I was referring to the
smallest scope that is consistent with the actual use of the variable.

Yes, I was not accusing you of writing wrong code -- that's precisely
the problem! *Correctness* dictates where you put your declaration,
not some aspiration that your declarations will be close to all its
usages. And that means the above example becomes a very typical
situation.

"Correctness" is not sufficient to determine where a declaration of an
identifier should occur. Except for variables whose use requires them to
have external linkage, there's usually multiple different places you
could declare an identifier that would make the code equally correct.
I'm asserting that, of those many places, the one that gives the
variable the smallest possible scope minimizes search time for
declarations. It also reduces the opportunities for name conflicts.

[Richard Heathfield]

James Kuyper said:

Paul Hsieh wrote:
...

>Really? Personally, I cannot even make that work. VC++'s editor does
not have a backward search, nor does it have Perl compatible RE
search, nor does it have simple semantics for ping-pong buffering
between two different searches. But in C89, its hardly needed as an
eyeball scan is quick and usually sufficient.

I've been programming computers for 30 years now, and I have never seen
a text editor that couldn't do a reverse search. Wow! It should be in a
museum somewhere; not on your computer.

He's talking nonsense. Of course VC's editor can search upwards. What's
more, it takes just a single keypress to jump to a declaration (and
another to pop back to where you came from), so he doesn't even /need/ the
reverse search that VC does in fact have.

--
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

[James Kuyper]

jacob navia wrote:

James Kuyper wrote:

>jacob navia wrote:

>>CBFalconer wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
Chris Hills wrote:
>jacob navia wrote:
>>
>>Most of the C library is "considered deprecated".

...

>>You have reading problems Chuck?

I said that they provoke a warning in Microsoft compiler of course,
not that the C library is deprecated.

Then the above is a mis-quotation? It certainly matches the version of
your message that is available through both my ISP's news server and
through groups.google.com.

WE WERE SPEAKING ABOUT THE MICROSOFT C COMPILER WHEN USED FOR
COMPILING C PROGRAMS.

That sentence refers to that compiler and its usage for C.

No, it does not. If that was the intent, then you wrote it incorrectly.
You should have written something like the following:

I might try the commerical version of the Vista compiler and see if I
can actually get anything useful done with it.

It produces messages saying that most of the C library is "considered
deprecated".

[Joachim Schmitz]

"James Kuyper" <ja*********@verizon.netschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:mlNcj.35227$gF4.27411@trnddc02...

Masood wrote:
...

>I didn't mean to offend anyone with the word "Taleban" - I apologize if
you took offense.

I can't imagine how you intended it to be taken as anything other than
offensive; being offensive strikes me as the whole point of such an
reference.

Please note that "I apologize if you took offense" isn't really a true
apology. It implies that the real blame is on Keith (and, by implication,
myself and others) for being offended, and that you still don't understand
that it was in fact offensive.

I would prefer to hear from you something along the line of "I apologize
for inadvertently writing something offensive.

>I thought it was just a good description - I think it will be clear to
most people that the features a "C Taleban" shares with an "Afghanistan
Taleban" are fundamentalism and extremely-held beliefs, rather than any
violence and suchlike.

Then choose for your comparison some group other than the Taliban. The
Taliban's claim to fame is not their fundamentalism, which is
unfortunately common throughout the world. They're famous for the violence
and oppression with which they impose their understanding of God's will on
others.

The people you've designated at "the C Taleban" don't have any power
whatsoever to impose their understanding of the ISO committee's will on
anybody; I'm not saying that I know for certain that none of them would
abuse such power if they had it; but they don't have it, so it's a moot
point.

"Taliban" merely means "students". Does that still offend you?

bye, Jojo

[jameskuyper]

Joachim Schmitz wrote:

"James Kuyper" <ja*********@verizon.netschrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:mlNcj.35227$gF4.27411@trnddc02...

....

Then choose for your comparison some group other than the Taliban. The
Taliban's claim to fame is not their fundamentalism, which is
unfortunately common throughout the world. They're famous for the violence
and oppression with which they impose their understanding of God's will on
others.

The people you've designated at "the C Taleban" don't have any power
whatsoever to impose their understanding of the ISO committee's will on
anybody; I'm not saying that I know for certain that none of them would
abuse such power if they had it; but they don't have it, so it's a moot
point.

"Taliban" merely means "students". Does that still offend you?

I'm well aware of the etymology of the name. If that were the only
meaning of the word, and then his use of that word would not have
offended me. It would have confused me, because that meaning doesn't
match the context in which he used the word. In context, it was quite
clear that he was using "Taleban" as a reference to the organization
which adopted that word as it's name.