468,490 Members | 2,555 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 468,490 developers. It's quick & easy.

Is Chris Hills a troll?

Or, just how low has this group sunk?

Twice in the past couple of days, Default Loser has accused Chris Hills,
member of the ISO C committee, of being a troll (though given that the
former's only "contributions" to this group are "don't top post" and
"plonk" posts, perhaps his opinions shouldn't be given *too* much
weight...)

But Jack Klein, too, has said the same thing in ever-so-slightly more
guarded language. And Heathfield has been hinting at it too in recent
weeks.

So has it really come to this? Is this really the growing consensus of
the regulars?

If so, perhaps they should do a little soul-searching and ask who the
real trolls are. And what the hell their little game is really all
about.

Jan 17 '08
198 4517
Keith Thompson wrote:
>
This "Antoninus Twink" character, who to the best of my knowledge
has never made a positive contribution to this newsgroup, has
managed to start a thread that is, at last count, 42 articles
long (including this one).

We really need to do a better job of ignoring the trolls. Just
imagine how much more pleasant this newsgroup would be if, every
time one of the trolls posted something, there were no response
at all.
Don't look at me. I just counted 37 kills in my killfile, not even
including thread kills.

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

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

Jan 18 '08 #51
On 18 Jan 2008 at 4:10, CBFalconer wrote:
Keith Thompson wrote:
>>
This "Antoninus Twink" character, who to the best of my knowledge
has never made a positive contribution to this newsgroup, has
managed to start a thread that is, at last count, 42 articles
long (including this one).

We really need to do a better job of ignoring the trolls. Just
imagine how much more pleasant this newsgroup would be if, every
time one of the trolls posted something, there were no response
at all.

Don't look at me. I just counted 37 kills in my killfile, not even
including thread kills.
It always amazes me how many people believe that the contents of their
killfile will be a matter of universal fascination.

Amusingly in this case, CBOldFart's claim is shown to be a lie by a post
he made himself only minutes apart from the one above:
Interestingly, in the roughly 7 hours since you posted the above, the
only responses have been 7 messages from the known trollers McCormack,
Richard, and Twink.
I wonder how he knows that, if we're really all in his killfile...

Jan 18 '08 #52
On 18 Jan 2008 at 14:14, Kenny McCormack wrote:
In article <fm**********@aioe.org>, Philip Potter <pg*@doc.ic.ac.ukwrote:
>>(and while I'm at it, I might unplonk Kenny McCormack, because unlike
Antonius and Richard, I find him somewhat entertaining sometimes...)

Well, thank you[*]. I do seem to hit the right notes, most of the
time, don't I? I do think that my esteemed colleague (Mr. Twink) is
(almost) as gifted, though.
Lucky old you, Kenny! I'm really cut to the quick that I've been
rejected by an oily, up-start Heathfield wannabe, whose drooling
adoration for his hero drips from every word he writes.

I think we're to The Clique what satirists are to politicians - we'd be
more easily dismissed if only there wasn't an awkwardly inescapable
serious point underlying our attempts to deflate the pompous, point out
hypocrisy and promote common sense.

Jan 18 '08 #53
Richard Heathfield wrote:

If the volume of positive contributions to the group is the
criterion, I can think of a few others you could ignore too, since
they don't make any positive contributions at all. Specifically,
"Kenny McCormack" and "Richard Riley" (who, it appears, can't even
remember his own surname long enough to put it in his From field, let
alone make a positive contribution to this group).
I certainly agree with that, as all of those are in my killfile, along
with Twink.


Brian
Jan 18 '08 #54
In article <sl*******************@nospam.invalid>,
Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrote:
....
>Don't look at me. I just counted 37 kills in my killfile, not even
including thread kills.

It always amazes me how many people believe that the contents of their
killfile will be a matter of universal fascination.
More than anything, it shows them to be of a non-technical bent.
They have so much more in common with religious leaders, (tele-)
evangelists, and most of the current crop of US presidential candidates,
than they do with real IS/IT people (which is the group they claim to
come from).
>Amusingly in this case, CBOldFart's claim is shown to be a lie by a post
he made himself only minutes apart from the one above:
Of course it is a lie. Did you expect otherwise???

Jan 18 '08 #55
Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>>>>>"RT" == Richard Tobin <ri*****@cogsci.ed.ac.ukwrites:

RTIn article <87************@mithril.chromatico.net>,
RTCharlton Wilbur <cw*****@chromatico.netwrote:
>In that he does the former, he's a valued contributor. In that
>he does the latter, he's a troll.

RTAlternatively: We all sometimes do stupid things; that doesn't
RTmean we *are* stupid. Similarly just because someone
RTsometimes trolls does't mean he *is* a troll. A troll who is
RTsomeone who habitually trolls.

Oh, I think Mr Hills habitually trolls; the word you may be looking
for is "exclusively," if you intend to argue that his positive
contributions outweigh his negative ones.
"Stupid is as stupid does." -- Forrest Gump ;-)

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
| Charles and Francis Richmond richmond at plano dot net |
+----------------------------------------------------------------+
Jan 18 '08 #56
On Fri, 18 Jan 2008 05:14:50 -0600, Nick Keighley wrote
(in article
<40**********************************@j78g2000hsd. googlegroups.com>):
Yep, the manners could be better sometimes.
But historically this ng has been used to discuss standard C.
They don't like it now, they should go back and read some of Dan Pop's
incredibly polite responses.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

Jan 18 '08 #57
Randy Howard wrote:
Nick Keighley wrote
>Yep, the manners could be better sometimes.
But historically this ng has been used to discuss standard C.

They don't like it now, they should go back and read some of Dan
Pop's incredibly polite responses.
Ahh yes. He was the absolutely ideal responder for newbies, and
always left them with a sated and satisfied feeling. :-) Does
anyone know where he went?

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

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

Jan 19 '08 #58
On Jan 18, 5:48*pm, CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yahoo.comwrote:
Randy Howard wrote:
Nick Keighley wrote
Yep, the manners could be better sometimes.
But historically this ng has been used to discuss standard C.
They don't like it now, they should go back and read some of Dan
Pop's incredibly polite responses.

Ahh yes. *He was the absolutely ideal responder for newbies, and
always left them with a sated and satisfied feeling. *:-) *Does
anyone know where he went?
But then there was also ultra-polite Tanmoy Bhattacharya.

Ah, quite googleable, he, I see.

Jan 19 '08 #59
CBFalconer said:
Randy Howard wrote:
>Nick Keighley wrote
>>Yep, the manners could be better sometimes.
But historically this ng has been used to discuss standard C.

They don't like it now, they should go back and read some of Dan
Pop's incredibly polite responses.

Ahh yes. He was the absolutely ideal responder for newbies, and
always left them with a sated and satisfied feeling. :-) Does
anyone know where he went?
Perhaps he has just Popped out for a moment. I suppose he'll return when
he's hunted down and shot the guy who managed to break into his lead-lined
steel-reinforced safely-use-gets() room.

--
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
Jan 19 '08 #60
Philip Potter wrote:
Antoninus Twink wrote:
>Wrong. I started out in this group by pointing out a poor choice of
algorithm, implemented in poor C style, in some code by Heathfield, and
suggested an improvement in idiomatic C.

That's not how I remember that thread. You replaced an O(n) algorithm
with an O(n) algorithm, and claimed you were fixing a "Bug/Gross
InEfficiency" (sic). Neither claim was true.
By that reasoning, the statement
while (*dest++ = *source++)
;
is no improvement over
while (tanhl(*source)) {
volatile uintmax_t i = -1, foo = -1;
while (i--)
if (atanl(i - *source))
foo ^= i;
*dest = foo;
dest++, source++;
}
as they both do the same thing in O(n) time...

(More seriously, probably Antoninus' code had a smaller constant [1], but
it was *really* ugly, so I would prefer spending some hundred nanoseconds
more than coding like that.)

[1] It depends on how strcpy is implemented. In cases when string.h
functions are inlined, something like char *dot_to_underscore(const char
*s) {
size_t len = strlen(s);
char *new = malloc(len + 1);
if (new != NULL) {
char *p = mempcy(new, s, len + 1), *end = new + len;
while ((p = memchr(p, '.', end - p)) != NULL)
*p++ = '_';
}
return new;
}
could be even faster. If they aren't, the function call overhead would
make it slower except for very long strings. (Another argument against the
big-O notation as being the only "right" way to talk about the speed of
code.)

--
Army1987 (Replace "NOSPAM" with "email")
Jan 19 '08 #61
On Jan 18, 6:48*pm, CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yahoo.comwrote:
Randy Howard wrote:
Nick Keighley wrote
Yep, the manners could be better sometimes.
But historically this ng has been used to discuss standard C.
They don't like it now, they should go back and read some of Dan
Pop's incredibly polite responses.

Ahh yes. *He was the absolutely ideal responder for newbies, and
always left them with a sated and satisfied feeling. *:-) *Does
anyone know where he went?
I was a usenet newbie when Dan was posting. Not only was he generous
with his posts, but he offered me one-on-one advice as well, helping
solve *my* problems, not either recasting them in terms of the
standard or declaring them OT. He was seen as a counterweight to
Keith, and without him, there's just the weight.

Last Dan was on my radar, he was just outside Berlin.
--

p.s. Chris Hills, actuarially and actual are different words see
upthread
Jan 22 '08 #62
In article
<f7**********************************@1g2000hsl.go oglegroups.com>, Wade
Ward <za*****@gmail.comwrites
>On Jan 18, 6:48*pm, CBFalconer <cbfalco...@yahoo.comwrote:
>Randy Howard wrote:
Nick Keighley wrote
>Yep, the manners could be better sometimes.
But historically this ng has been used to discuss standard C.
They don't like it now, they should go back and read some of Dan
Pop's incredibly polite responses.

Ahh yes. *He was the absolutely ideal responder for newbies, and
always left them with a sated and satisfied feeling. *:-) *Does
anyone know where he went?
I was a usenet newbie when Dan was posting. Not only was he generous
with his posts, but he offered me one-on-one advice as well, helping
solve *my* problems, not either recasting them in terms of the
standard or declaring them OT.
That is good. Help with the C problem without getting silly about OT or
UB etc where it has little relevance in reality.
He was seen as a counterweight to
Keith, and without him, there's just the weight.
Last Dan was on my radar, he was just outside Berlin.
--

p.s. Chris Hills, actuarially and actual are different words see
upthread
For my sins I am slykdyxic (Dyslexic) and a bloody awful typist... I
must admit I don't check my posts as well as I should.

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

Jan 22 '08 #63
In article <$F**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>,
Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.demon.co.ukwrote in response to someone
else:
....
>>I was a usenet newbie when Dan was posting. Not only was he generous
with his posts, but he offered me one-on-one advice as well, helping
solve *my* problems, not either recasting them in terms of the
standard or declaring them OT.

That is good. Help with the C problem without getting silly about OT or
UB etc where it has little relevance in reality.
It is very much like in the Catholic Church, where stamping out heresy
(i.e., protecting the integrity of the central object - that which
defines the faith) is seen as more important than any of the "good works",
which are *supposed* to be the reason for the thing's existence.
>He was seen as a counterweight to
Keith, and without him, there's just the weight.
Indeed. Many have pointed out that the real problem with CLC (and other
similar religious organizations) is that the fanatics drive the
moderates out.

Jan 22 '08 #64
ga*****@xmission.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
In article <$F**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>,
Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.demon.co.ukwrote in response to someone
else:
...
>>>I was a usenet newbie when Dan was posting. Not only was he generous
with his posts, but he offered me one-on-one advice as well, helping
solve *my* problems, not either recasting them in terms of the
standard or declaring them OT.

That is good. Help with the C problem without getting silly about OT or
UB etc where it has little relevance in reality.

It is very much like in the Catholic Church, where stamping out heresy
(i.e., protecting the integrity of the central object - that which
defines the faith) is seen as more important than any of the "good works",
which are *supposed* to be the reason for the thing's existence.
>>He was seen as a counterweight to
Keith, and without him, there's just the weight.

Indeed. Many have pointed out that the real problem with CLC (and other
similar religious organizations) is that the fanatics drive the
moderates out.
I find it amusing that that self absorbed nincompoop Falconer obviously
models himself on the more vindictive side of Dan.
Jan 22 '08 #65

"Kenny McCormack" <ga*****@xmission.xmission.comwrote in message
In article <$F**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>,
It is very much like in the Catholic Church, where stamping out heresy
(i.e., protecting the integrity of the central object - that which
defines the faith) is seen as more important than any of the "good works",
which are *supposed* to be the reason for the thing's existence.

Indeed. Many have pointed out that the real problem with CLC (and other
similar religious organizations) is that the fanatics drive the
moderates out.
To state that the standard is not useful and should be changed is sensible.
I've done it myself by requesting the deprecation and eventual removal of
size_t. However really that discussion belongs on comp.std.c - here we
discuss how to make the best of the standard as it is.

To say that a religious creed - e.g. the virgin birth of Jesus - is not
useful because, to take a real complaint, it presents an ideal unattainable
by other women may be true, but it is kind of pointless. The reality is what
it is, and won't be different because of anyone's personal convenience or
opinions about what she should aspire to be.
<OT>
You can do good works with Oxfam, or UNICEF, or even the Mafia. Sensible
gangsters contribute generously to charity. What you cannot do is achieve
salvation outside of the Church.
</OT>

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

Jan 22 '08 #66
Malcolm McLean wrote:
>
"Kenny McCormack" <ga*****@xmission.xmission.comwrote in message
>In article <$F**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>,
It is very much like in the Catholic Church, where stamping out
heresy (i.e., protecting the integrity of the central object - that
which defines the faith) is seen as more important than any of the
"good works", which are *supposed* to be the reason for the thing's
existence.

Indeed. Many have pointed out that the real problem with CLC (and
other similar religious organizations) is that the fanatics drive the
moderates out.
To state that the standard is not useful and should be changed is
sensible. I've done it myself by requesting the deprecation and
eventual removal of size_t. However really that discussion belongs on
comp.std.c - here we discuss how to make the best of the standard as
it is.
<snip>

You should have stopped here. Now we'll likely have another long
subthread on religion.

Jan 22 '08 #67
In article <ab******************************@bt.com>,
Malcolm McLean <re*******@btinternet.comwrote:
>
"Kenny McCormack" <ga*****@xmission.xmission.comwrote in message
>In article <$F**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>,
It is very much like in the Catholic Church, where stamping out heresy
(i.e., protecting the integrity of the central object - that which
defines the faith) is seen as more important than any of the "good works",
which are *supposed* to be the reason for the thing's existence.

Indeed. Many have pointed out that the real problem with CLC (and other
similar religious organizations) is that the fanatics drive the
moderates out.
To state that the standard is not useful and should be changed is sensible.
I've done it myself by requesting the deprecation and eventual removal of
size_t. However really that discussion belongs on comp.std.c - here we
discuss how to make the best of the standard as it is.
While true, this has nothing to do with anything I've posted.

Or, as I like to put it, sun still rising in east, Francisco Franco
still dead.
>To say that a religious creed - e.g. the virgin birth of Jesus - is not
useful because, to take a real complaint, it presents an ideal unattainable
by other women may be true, but it is kind of pointless. The reality is what
it is, and won't be different because of anyone's personal convenience or
opinions about what she should aspire to be.
<OT>
You can do good works with Oxfam, or UNICEF, or even the Mafia. Sensible
gangsters contribute generously to charity. What you cannot do is achieve
salvation outside of the Church.
</OT>
Wait a sec! You're not a religious whack job, are you?

And to think I once had some respect for your posts...

Jan 22 '08 #68

"Kenny McCormack" <ga*****@xmission.xmission.comwrote
>><OT>
You can do good works with Oxfam, or UNICEF, or even the Mafia.
Sensible gangsters contribute generously to charity. What you cannot do is
>>achieve salvation outside of the Church.
</OT>

Wait a sec! You're not a religious whack job, are you?

And to think I once had some respect for your posts...
#
<OT>
There's plenty of religious material on my website.
I recommend "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus". That's a statement we both agree
with, the issue is whether the implied corollary is true.
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy...Ecclesiam.html
</OT>

However I can't think of a way to get this back to C, so there will be no
further followups from me.

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

Jan 22 '08 #69
Malcolm McLean wrote:
>
"Kenny McCormack" <ga*****@xmission.xmission.comwrote
[blah blah]
However I can't think of a way to get this back to C, so there will
be no further followups from me.

That should be the going-in position with trolls like Kenny.


Brian
Jan 22 '08 #70
Malcolm McLean wrote:
"Kenny McCormack" <ga*****@xmission.xmission.comwrote
.... snip ...
>
However I can't think of a way to get this back to C, so there
will be no further followups from me.
Good. Meanwhile you have attracted only trolls and Santosh.

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

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

Jan 22 '08 #71
Chris Hills wrote:
The other point is pure ISO C is neither implemented nor used by the
vast majority of the world.
But impure ISO C is; and we can portably comment on the ISO C aspects
and direct posters to relevant newsgroups for the nonportable bits,
where they can get the required implementation-specific help.
So quoting pure ISO C at people who are not
using it (which is 99% of the world) is pointless in many cases.
/On it's own/, in /some/ cases, yes. But once you open the portal
to non-ISO and non-C topics, where are you going to stop? Are you
going to stop at all? Arguments about topicality are inevitable;
only the boundary changes.

[I don't really care; while the S/N ratio is reasonable I'll be
here; when it isn't, I'll go; I would be sorry to lose what I
see as a valuable resource, and sorry to stop trying to pay back
what I have learned here, but life is finite and regret just
another kind of slow poison.]
We have to work with the tools that are out there.
That's not the /only/ thing we can do.
It's not my fault the standard is wrong.
Standards can't be wrong, but they can be inappropriate.

--
Varying Degrees Hedgehog
"Based on their behaviour so far -- I have no idea" /Sahara/

Jan 23 '08 #72
In article <Ie******************@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk> , Chris
Dollin <eh@electrichedgehog.netwrites
>Chris Hills wrote:
>It's not my fault the standard is wrong.

Standards can't be wrong, but they can be inappropriate.
:-)

Which is why C1* is likely to back track on C99 and move closer to C95?
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Jan 23 '08 #73
Chris Hills wrote:
In article <Ie******************@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk> , Chris
Dollin <eh@electrichedgehog.netwrites
>>Chris Hills wrote:
>>It's not my fault the standard is wrong.

Standards can't be wrong, but they can be inappropriate.
:-)

Which is why C1* is likely to back track on C99 and move closer to C95?
You're asking /me/?

--
Chance Brother Hedgehog
"Who do you serve, and who do you trust?" /Crusade/

Jan 23 '08 #74
In article <kg********************@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk> , Chris
Dollin <eh@electrichedgehog.netwrites
>Chris Hills wrote:
>In article <Ie******************@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk> , Chris
Dollin <eh@electrichedgehog.netwrites
>>>Chris Hills wrote:

It's not my fault the standard is wrong.

Standards can't be wrong, but they can be inappropriate.
:-)

Which is why C1* is likely to back track on C99 and move closer to C95?

You're asking /me/?
No telling you. All the indications I have see are that it will do so.

Actually the New spirit of C is

a Trust the Programmer
b Don't prevent the programmer from doing what needs to be done
c Keep the Language small and simple
d Provide only one way to do an operation
e Make it fast, even if it is not guaranteed to be portable
f Make support for safety and security demonstrable

Also to minimise incompatibilities with C90


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

Jan 23 '08 #75
In article <$T**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>,
Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.demon.co.ukwrote:
>Actually the New spirit of C is
>a Trust the Programmer
b Don't prevent the programmer from doing what needs to be done
c Keep the Language small and simple
d Provide only one way to do an operation
e Make it fast, even if it is not guaranteed to be portable
f Make support for safety and security demonstrable
>Also to minimise incompatibilities with C90
>d Provide only one way to do an operation
Ah... so ++ and -- will be gone, replaced by += 1 and -= 1 ?
And p[q] will be removed, replaced by *(p+q) ?
And strlen(r) will be replaced by snprintf("%s", 0, r) ?
--
"I was very young in those days, but I was also rather dim."
-- Christopher Priest
Jan 23 '08 #76
Walter Roberson said:
In article <$T**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>,
Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.demon.co.ukwrote:
<snip>
>>d Provide only one way to do an operation

Ah... so ++ and -- will be gone, replaced by += 1 and -= 1 ?
No, you'll have to replace them by: x = x + 1; and x = x - 1;
And p[q] will be removed, replaced by *(p+q) ?
Also the compiler must ensure that the programmer does write the pointer
value first: *(q + p) must be outlawed.
And strlen(r) will be replaced by snprintf("%s", 0, r) ?
So much for compatibility with C90. :-)

--
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
Jan 23 '08 #77
Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrites:
On 23 Jan 2008 at 4:27, Old Wolf wrote:
>On Jan 18, 7:46 am, Chris Hills <ch...@phaedsys.orgwrote:
>>In the last example because it was void main() several said the whole
program is UB (and because there were no explicit header files).

You could point out that whilst many compilers will take void main the
correct prototype is probably: int main (void)

You could mention that for a conforming program you should have the
following header files and then look at the actual problem the OP had.

The posters are offering their time and help of their own
good will. It's rich of you to criticize the advice for
not being good enough. If you think the advice is poor, then
why not post your own advice that is up to your standards? Then
the original poster will be able to heed whichever message(s)
he finds most useful.

He does, frequently.

The problem is that the very same posters who supply the scornful and
unhelpful replies to newbies who happen to know fewer obscure details
from the C Standard than them - these same posters are the ones who
delight in smacking down other replies for being "off-topic, not C, blah
blah blah".

So the OP *doesn't* get to choose between the two forms of advice,
because the real world C programmers who post here get drowned out by
the yapping of Heathfield's topicality guard-dogs (and usually
disappear quickly rather than keep wasting their time banging their
heads on a wall).
very well put and my initial reaction when I returned to this group
after a long absence. I was *shocked* at how this group had degraded
into some sort of egofest.
Jan 24 '08 #78
Old Wolf <ol*****@inspire.net.nzwrites:
On Jan 18, 7:46 am, Chris Hills <ch...@phaedsys.orgwrote:
>Simply stating UB or "not proper C" with no explanation is the sort
arrogance you only come across in people who delight in proving
themselves superior to the poor person asking such a stupid question
without actually helping anyone.

Who are you to say that ? It seems highly arrogant to me
to be ascribing such motives to people simply based on the
length of the answer.
What other motive can there be?

"UB" is not an answer to be given in a HELP group. Simple really. But as
part of the established clique you will undoubtedly feign ignorance.

Chris Hills is quite correct.

Jan 24 '08 #79
CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrites:
Malcolm McLean wrote:
>"Kenny McCormack" <ga*****@xmission.xmission.comwrote
... snip ...
>>
However I can't think of a way to get this back to C, so there
will be no further followups from me.

Good. Meanwhile you have attracted only trolls and Santosh.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
Were you aware that you are still posting with a double signature
despite being asked numerous times to move from teranews to another free
server which does not add the second signature.

Jan 24 '08 #80
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:28:06 -0600, Chris Hills wrote
(in article <$T**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>):
In article <kg********************@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk> , Chris
Dollin <eh@electrichedgehog.netwrites
>Chris Hills wrote:
>>In article <Ie******************@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk> , Chris
Dollin <eh@electrichedgehog.netwrites
Chris Hills wrote:

It's not my fault the standard is wrong.

Standards can't be wrong, but they can be inappropriate.
-)

Which is why C1* is likely to back track on C99 and move closer to C95?

You're asking /me/?

No telling you. All the indications I have see are that it will do so.

Actually the New spirit of C is

a Trust the Programmer
Dangerous, but not really the language standard's concern.
b Don't prevent the programmer from doing what needs to be done
Is Microsoft still working actively to try and make it unusable?
c Keep the Language small and simple
Bye-bye silly math functions?
d Provide only one way to do an operation
Taken to its logical conclusion, this would break pretty much all
software. What does it really mean?
e Make it fast, even if it is not guaranteed to be portable
Whoops. That's the nail in the coffin right there. I'll stick with
C90, thank you very much.
f Make support for safety and security demonstrable
You demonstrate that you have support for safety and security by ....
wait for it... leaving gets() in the standard. ;-)
Also to minimise incompatibilities with C90
Just bump the date stamp on C95 and call it C-whatever. Remove gets().
Done. Have a nice day.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

Jan 24 '08 #81
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 16:50:57 -0600, Richard Heathfield wrote
(in article <zo******************************@bt.com>):
Walter Roberson said:
>In article <$T**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>,
Chris Hills <ch***@phaedsys.demon.co.ukwrote:
<snip>
>>d Provide only one way to do an operation

Ah... so ++ and -- will be gone, replaced by += 1 and -= 1 ?

No, you'll have to replace them by: x = x + 1; and x = x - 1;
>And p[q] will be removed, replaced by *(p+q) ?

Also the compiler must ensure that the programmer does write the pointer
value first: *(q + p) must be outlawed.
>And strlen(r) will be replaced by snprintf("%s", 0, r) ?

So much for compatibility with C90. :-)
Doesn't take a crystal ball to predict that most people will still be
writing basically C89 with minor additions in 2050.

--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

Jan 24 '08 #82
In article <00*****************************@news.verizon.net> , Randy
Howard <ra*********@FOOverizonBAR.netwrites
>On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 13:28:06 -0600, Chris Hills wrote
(in article <$T**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>):
>In article <kg********************@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk> , Chris
Dollin <eh@electrichedgehog.netwrites
>>Chris Hills wrote:

In article <Ie******************@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk> , Chris
Dollin <eh@electrichedgehog.netwrites
Chris Hills wrote:
>
>It's not my fault the standard is wrong.
>
Standards can't be wrong, but they can be inappropriate.
-)

Which is why C1* is likely to back track on C99 and move closer to C95?

You're asking /me/?

No telling you. All the indications I have see are that it will do so.

Actually the New spirit of C is

a Trust the Programmer

Dangerous, but not really the language standard's concern.
I would agree
>
>b Don't prevent the programmer from doing what needs to be done

Is Microsoft still working actively to try and make it unusable?
Yes AFAIK
>c Keep the Language small and simple

Bye-bye silly math functions?
Yes
>d Provide only one way to do an operation
Taken to its logical conclusion, this would break pretty much all
software. What does it really mean?
>e Make it fast, even if it is not guaranteed to be portable

Whoops. That's the nail in the coffin right there. I'll stick with
C90, thank you very much.
Why? What if the compilers don't?
>f Make support for safety and security demonstrable

You demonstrate that you have support for safety and security by ....
wait for it... leaving gets() in the standard. ;-)
:-)
>Also to minimise incompatibilities with C90

Just bump the date stamp on C95 and call it C-whatever. Remove gets().
Done. Have a nice day.
:-))))

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

Jan 24 '08 #83
In article <uo************@news.individual.net>, Richard
<rg****@gmail.comwrites
>Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrites:
>On 23 Jan 2008 at 4:27, Old Wolf wrote:
>>On Jan 18, 7:46 am, Chris Hills <ch...@phaedsys.orgwrote:
In the last example because it was void main() several said the whole
program is UB (and because there were no explicit header files).

You could point out that whilst many compilers will take void main the
correct prototype is probably: int main (void)

You could mention that for a conforming program you should have the
following header files and then look at the actual problem the OP had.

The posters are offering their time and help of their own
good will. It's rich of you to criticize the advice for
not being good enough. If you think the advice is poor, then
why not post your own advice that is up to your standards? Then
the original poster will be able to heed whichever message(s)
he finds most useful.

He does, frequently.

The problem is that the very same posters who supply the scornful and
unhelpful replies to newbies who happen to know fewer obscure details
from the C Standard than them - these same posters are the ones who
delight in smacking down other replies for being "off-topic, not C, blah
blah blah".

So the OP *doesn't* get to choose between the two forms of advice,
because the real world C programmers who post here get drowned out by
the yapping of Heathfield's topicality guard-dogs (and usually
disappear quickly rather than keep wasting their time banging their
heads on a wall).

very well put and my initial reaction when I returned to this group
after a long absence. I was *shocked* at how this group had degraded
into some sort of egofest.
Being able to quote the standard in a way that is unhelpful to new or
inexperienced users is on no help to anyone bar the ego of the pedant

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

Jan 24 '08 #84
In article <lj************@news.individual.net>, Richard
<rg****@gmail.comwrites
>CBFalconer <cb********@yahoo.comwrites:
>Malcolm McLean wrote:
>>"Kenny McCormack" <ga*****@xmission.xmission.comwrote
... snip ...
>>>
However I can't think of a way to get this back to C, so there
will be no further followups from me.

Good. Meanwhile you have attracted only trolls and Santosh.

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

Were you aware that you are still posting with a double signature
despite being asked numerous times to move from teranews to another free
server which does not add the second signature.
That is irrelevant... only the c.l.c zealots can pick and choose the
points at which they are pedants with the rules.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Jan 24 '08 #85
Chris Hills said:
In article <lj************@news.individual.net>, Richard
<rg****@gmail.comwrites
<snip>
>>Were you aware that you are still posting with a double signature
despite being asked numerous times to move from teranews to another free
server which does not add the second signature.

That is irrelevant... only the c.l.c zealots can pick and choose the
points at which they are pedants with the rules.
Chris, you are over-simplifying the group's dynamics, and thus
mis-representing reality.

Chuck's hypocrisy has been pointed out several times by several people,
including myself. I guess you could (and would!) call me a clc zealot -
but, contrary to your claim, I do my best to observe clc and Usenet
customs and conventions; I don't say I always succeed in that, of course,
but I do try.

But clc is not, thank God, a police state - and Chuck can't be dragged off
by his thumbs for violating the four-line sig convention, nor even for the
hypocrisy of pointing out other people's notiquette whilst indulging in it
himself. I have made my views clear to him on a number of occasions, and I
can't realistically do any more without boring the group silly.

You are adopting and beginning to present in your articles a
mischaracterisation of this group that is habitually put forward by those
who contribute no technical value whatsoever to this group. A man is known
by the company he keeps, and very often for good reason. I *know* there's
a reasonable bloke in there somewhere, Chris, but you're hiding him very
well. I do wish you wouldn't.

--
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
Jan 24 '08 #86
On 24 Jan 2008 at 8:29, Richard Heathfield wrote:
But clc is not, thank God, a police state -
Certain people seem to wish it was.
You are adopting and beginning to present in your articles a
mischaracterisation of this group that is habitually put forward by those
who contribute no technical value whatsoever to this group. A man is known
by the company he keeps, and very often for good reason. I *know* there's
a reasonable bloke in there somewhere, Chris, but you're hiding him very
well. I do wish you wouldn't.
And so we've come full circle... it was exactly this accusation (albeit
in your case cloaked in snide innuendo rather than expressed directly)
that this thread was meant to address.

Jan 24 '08 #87
[snips]

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:42:27 +0000, Chris Hills wrote:
>>e Make it fast, even if it is not guaranteed to be portable

Whoops. That's the nail in the coffin right there. I'll stick with
C90, thank you very much.

Why? What if the compilers don't?
Why? Because if I have to write a different version of the code just
because I've moved from Windows to Linux to OSX, or from 32 bit Linux to
64 bit, I'm simply not going to be arsed to do so. Existing C allows me
to code to (nearly) every platform where the code I produce might be
relevant, by producing *one* set of code, knowing that modulo
implementation errors, the code will be portable.

Break that guarantee, C instantly becomes considerably less useful. In
fact, for much of what I use C for, other languages would be better
*except* for the fact that of them, C is the most portable. Lose that
and I might as well be using VB.
>>Just bump the date stamp on C95 and call it C-whatever. Remove gets().
Done. Have a nice day.

:-))))
Can I cast a vote for elimination of ato* as well? Talk about a
completely pointless function set.

Jan 24 '08 #88
In article <44************@spanky.localhost.net>, Kelsey Bjarnason
<kb********@gmail.comwrites
>[snips]

On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 07:42:27 +0000, Chris Hills wrote:
>>>e Make it fast, even if it is not guaranteed to be portable

Whoops. That's the nail in the coffin right there. I'll stick with
C90, thank you very much.

Why? What if the compilers don't?

Why? Because if I have to write a different version of the code just
because I've moved from Windows to Linux to OSX, or from 32 bit Linux to
64 bit, I'm simply not going to be arsed to do so. Existing C allows me
to code to (nearly) every platform where the code I produce might be
relevant, by producing *one* set of code, knowing that modulo
implementation errors, the code will be portable.

Break that guarantee, C instantly becomes considerably less useful. In
fact, for much of what I use C for, other languages would be better
*except* for the fact that of them, C is the most portable. Lose that
and I might as well be using VB.
C runs on 8-128 bit systems with and without an RTOS. The major use
these days being in the embedded sector.

You use a small subset where portability is useful. I expect the areas
where they are talking about it are not going to be of interest to you
anyway.

Also as you point out you have a choice of languages on your targets.
Many don't
>>>Just bump the date stamp on C95 and call it C-whatever. Remove gets().
Done. Have a nice day.

:-))))

Can I cast a vote for elimination of ato* as well? Talk about a
completely pointless function set.
OK... Do we want to start a list of things to drop from the next ISO C.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

Jan 24 '08 #89
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:41:25 -0600, Chris Hills wrote
(in article <N8**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>):
OK... Do we want to start a list of things to drop from the next ISO C.
I'm sort of wondering what the point is. Not trying to be snarky, it's
a serious question. It's sounds like the intent is to basically 'undo'
C99. Why bother? Bits and pieces of C99 /are/ being used, with
partial compilers, and a few commercial compilers that claim to support
it fully on some systems.

What's broken? Most people are not using more than a tiny fraction of
what was added in C99 anyway, C programmers do not have some glaring
problem with a missing C-whatever standard.

The committee is doing a lot of work it sounds like, and I'm really
curious why that is. You expect people that have been working on
getting C99 support into compilers for almost decade to take kindly to
having all that work declared "obsolete"? Think they'll be excited to
rip all that out and start work on changing their compilers yet again,
when the bulk of the people actually using the language were happy with
the language 20 years ago?

Sounds like a colossal waste of time.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

Jan 24 '08 #90
Chris Hills said:

<snip>
OK... Do we want to start a list of things to drop from the next ISO C.
All the C99 additions can go (see elsethread for my very short list of
exceptions).

ato* and gets have already been mentioned. asctime and ctime can go.

The unadorned %s format specifier in *scanf needs to be decodified - a
maximum width should be required.

--
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
Jan 24 '08 #91
In article <00*****************************@news.verizon.net> , Randy
Howard <ra*********@FOOverizonBAR.netwrites
>On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 04:41:25 -0600, Chris Hills wrote
(in article <N8**************@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>):
>OK... Do we want to start a list of things to drop from the next ISO C.

I'm sort of wondering what the point is. Not trying to be snarky, it's
a serious question. It's sounds like the intent is to basically 'undo'
C99. Why bother? Bits and pieces of C99 /are/ being used, with
partial compilers, and a few commercial compilers that claim to support
it fully on some systems.
I agree. The problem is small, specialised groups, want various
"extension" that the majority don't want.

I think the intention is to have a smaller Core language (that should
be portable for most people) and then a set of appendices for extensions
for special interest groups.

So a compiler could be full compliant with the core and appendices 1 and
4 but not 2 and 3 (ie an 8 bit micro does not want 64 bit complex maths)
>What's broken? Most people are not using more than a tiny fraction of
what was added in C99 anyway,
Exacttley a lot of stuff got added that in reality only small groups
needed. This is why few compiler implement the whole standard.
>The committee is doing a lot of work it sounds like, and I'm really
curious why that is. You expect people that have been working on
getting C99 support into compilers for almost decade to take kindly to
having all that work declared "obsolete"?
Not at all... the problem is that most of them have not put most of it
in. certainly stuff that is of no interest to their customers. Remember
C is used 8-128 bit systems. (And there are more 8 bit systems out there
than anything else. )
Think they'll be excited to
rip all that out and start work on changing their compilers yet again,
when the bulk of the people actually using the language were happy with
the language 20 years ago?
That is the point the users and the compilers are still largely C95
compliant.
>Sounds like a colossal waste of time.
You might think that....

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

Jan 24 '08 #92
In article <DN******************************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>The unadorned %s format specifier in *scanf needs to be decodified - a
maximum width should be required.
%s can be perfectly safe in sscanf().

-- Richard
--
:wq
Jan 24 '08 #93
Richard Tobin said:
In article <DN******************************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>>The unadorned %s format specifier in *scanf needs to be decodified - a
maximum width should be required.

%s can be perfectly safe in sscanf().
I don't see a maximum width requirement doing any harm, though, even in
sscanf. After all, for it to *be* perfectly safe, you need to know how big
your buffer is, right?

But yes, at the cost of a potentially confusing wart, sscanf could be
excepted.

--
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
Jan 24 '08 #94
Randy Howard wrote:
Richard Heathfield wrote
.... snip ...
>
>So much for compatibility with C90. :-)

Doesn't take a crystal ball to predict that most people will
still be writing basically C89 with minor additions in 2050.
Defining 'most' as including me, wanna bet?

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Jan 24 '08 #95
"santosh" <sa*********@gmail.comwrote in message
>
Why don't you use a language more closer to your ideals? Is there no
other language out there more suitable for you? You seem to be
constantly swimming against a current with C.
The problem is you don't usually have a choice.

I have in fact implemented my own language. But it's either a toy, if used
for full applications, or a very specialised tool, if embedded into larger
programs.

My choice at work is C or Fortran 77. For various reasons, nothing else is
feasible, though I do use Perl and Java for trivial little work-related
things.

--
Free games and programming goodies.
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
Jan 24 '08 #96
On Jan 24, 3:26*am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalidwrote:
Chris Hills said:

<snip>
OK... Do we want to start a list of things to drop from the next ISO C.

All the C99 additions can go (see elsethread for my very short list of
exceptions).
Whether you use them or not, what conceivable harm is created by their
inclusion? This seems a very strange statement to me. If the
additions made C99 incompatible with C90, then I can imagine some
cause for complaint. If there were (for instance) 10,000 math
functions added to the math library, I do not see how it could cause
any difficulties unless you intended to use them. And in that case,
you would only have to learn the proper use of those few functions
which you chose to select for inclusion into your program.

If C99 were thoroughly implemented by all compiler vendors, I would
use it without hesitation. There are lots of things that it contains
that I would like to benefit from.

Unfortunately, we have to support every platform you can imagine and
some that you cannot imagine and so C99 can't be used for our
purposes.
Now {from a business standpoint for me}, 95% of our code is C++
anyway, so it's more or less a tempest in a teapot (for us) anyway.
ato* and gets have already been mentioned. asctime and ctime can go.
If you require a non-zero input, then ato*() functions are perfectly
acceptable.
The unadorned %s format specifier in *scanf needs to be decodified - a
maximum width should be required.
I'm with you on this one.

Here is what I think C is missing {including both C90 & C99} (above
all else):
Complete, thorough Unicode handling.

IMO-YMMV.

Jan 24 '08 #97
In article
<eb**********************************@1g2000hsl.go oglegroups.com>,
user923005 <dc*****@connx.comwrites
>On Jan 24, 3:26*am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>Chris Hills said:

<snip>
OK... Do we want to start a list of things to drop from the next ISO C.

All the C99 additions can go (see elsethread for my very short list of
exceptions).

Whether you use them or not, what conceivable harm is created by their
inclusion? This seems a very strange statement to me.
Because then tools have to include them to be compliant.
If the
additions made C99 incompatible with C90, then I can imagine some
cause for complaint. If there were (for instance) 10,000 math
functions added to the math library, I do not see how it could cause
any difficulties unless you intended to use them.
Because library writers and compiler companies would have to include
them.
>Here is what I think C is missing {including both C90 & C99} (above
all else):
Complete, thorough Unicode handling.
Not sure on that one. Most of us don't need unicode.

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

Jan 24 '08 #98
On Jan 24, 12:29*pm, Chris Hills <ch...@phaedsys.orgwrote:
In article
<eb91686b-48a6-495f-a4a9-05e8ee631...@1g2000hsl.googlegroups.com>,
user923005 <dcor...@connx.comwrites
On Jan 24, 3:26*am, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalidwrote:
Chris Hills said:
<snip>
OK... Do we want to start a list of things to drop from the next ISO C.
All the C99 additions can go (see elsethread for my very short list of
exceptions).
Whether you use them or not, what conceivable harm is created by their
inclusion? *This seems a very strange statement to me.

Because then tools have to include them to be compliant.
In such a case, why not simply create a reference implementation that
all can use?
The Cephes collection by Moshier, for instance, contains a very
extensive collection of math functions.
*If the
additions made C99 incompatible with C90, then I can imagine some
cause for complaint. *If there were (for instance) 10,000 math
functions added to the math library, I do not see how it could cause
any difficulties unless you intended to use them.

Because library writers and compiler companies would have to include
them.
I do see the point about testing burden, now that I think of it.
Here is what I think C is missing {including both C90 & C99} (above
all else):
Complete, thorough Unicode handling.

Not sure on that one. Most of us don't need unicode.
That is hard for me to fathom, unless you deal mainly in toaster ICs.
Most of the world needs Unicode, because so many character sets cannot
be represented in 8 bits. Can you imagine a successful large database
that lacks Unicode? It would never fly.
Jan 24 '08 #99
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:44:43 -0600, CBFalconer wrote
(in article <47***************@yahoo.com>):
Randy Howard wrote:
>Richard Heathfield wrote
... snip ...
>>
>>So much for compatibility with C90. :-)

Doesn't take a crystal ball to predict that most people will
still be writing basically C89 with minor additions in 2050.

Defining 'most' as including me, wanna bet?
Well, several of us, likely including me, won't be alive that far out.
;-)
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
"The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those
who have not got it." - George Bernard Shaw

Jan 24 '08 #100

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

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