Re: what 64 mean in fopen64?

[Antoninus Twink]

On 2 Jul 2008 at 10:35, Jens Thoms Toerring wrote:

viza <to******@gmil.comwrote:

>I have given a fairly complete reply to this in clc.

>Do *NOT* post the same article in different groups! Either here or
comp.lang.c would have been able to answer this question*, but if you
post to both separately then you risk making people waste time answering
you when you have already been answered somewhere else.

The OP has been redirected here to cup from clc (and rightly so),
so he posted here again as he was asked to. What's wrong with that?

Rightly so? Only according you your solipsistic view of what should be
"topical" in clc. As this thread demonstrates, this stupid insistence of
the clc "regulars" in trying to push perfectly sensible C questions into
other groups only causes trouble, difficulty and confusion, and wastes
the time of other posters.

The question was topical both in clc (which discusses all of C, not just
the subset defined by the ISO standard) and in cup. The OP chose to post
it in clc, so answer it there or say nothing.

[K-mart Cashier]

On Jul 3, 2:52*pm, Antoninus Twink <[e-mail]:

On *2 Jul 2008 at 10:35, Jens Thoms Toerring wrote:

viza <[e-mail]:

I have given a fairly complete reply to this in clc.

Do *NOT* post the same article in different groups! *Either here or
comp.lang.c would have been able to answer this question*, but if you
post to both separately then you risk making people waste time answering
you when you have already been answered somewhere else.

The OP has been redirected here to cup from clc (and rightly so),
so he posted here again as he was asked to. What's wrong with that?

Rightly so? Only according you your solipsistic view of what should be
"topical" in clc. As this thread demonstrates, this stupid insistence of
the clc "regulars" in trying to push perfectly sensible C questions into
other groups only causes trouble, difficulty and confusion, and wastes
the time of other posters.

The question was topical both in clc (which discusses all of C, not just
the subset defined by the ISO standard) and in cup. The OP chose to post
it in clc, so answer it there or say nothing.

So after getting hosed down by both Dr. Sosman and Chuck on
comp.lang.c, you figured that you might head to the safer realm of
comp.unix.programmer?

[K-mart Cashier]

On Jul 3, 2:52*pm, Antoninus Twink <[e-mail]:

On *2 Jul 2008 at 10:35, Jens Thoms Toerring wrote:

viza <[e-mail]:

I have given a fairly complete reply to this in clc.

Do *NOT* post the same article in different groups! *Either here or
comp.lang.c would have been able to answer this question*, but if you
post to both separately then you risk making people waste time answering
you when you have already been answered somewhere else.

The OP has been redirected here to cup from clc (and rightly so),
so he posted here again as he was asked to. What's wrong with that?

Rightly so? Only according you your solipsistic view of what should be
"topical" in clc. As this thread demonstrates, this stupid insistence of
the clc "regulars" in trying to push perfectly sensible C questions into
other groups only causes trouble, difficulty and confusion, and wastes
the time of other posters.

The question was topical both in clc (which discusses all of C, not just
the subset defined by the ISO standard) and in cup. The OP chose to post
it in clc, so answer it there or say nothing.

So after getting hosed down by both Dr. Sosman and Chuck on
comp.lang.c, you decided to find safer ground in the realm of
comp.unix.programmer? By the way, if you read my posting history, I
really don't try to critize someone unless they act like a total
retard.

[Walter Roberson]

In article <sl*******************@nospam.invalid>,
Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrote:

>The question was topical both in clc (which discusses all of C, not just
the subset defined by the ISO standard) and in cup.

The question was *not* topical in comp.lang.c, as fopen64() is *not*
part of C. fopen64() is an API provided on -some- operating systems
in -some- of their versions, and merely happens to be -callable- from
C (amongst other languages) on those systems.

The fact that a routine can be successfully called from C does not
render questions about the purpose or usage of the routine topical
for comp.lang.c: to claim otherwise is to claim as topical
in comp.lang.c any routine which can be called from C in at least
one implementation (and conversely, would leave as non-topical
only routines which can be proven to -never- be callable from C
in -any- implementations.)
--
"I feel sorry for the person who can't get genuinely excited
about his work. Not only will he never be satisfied, but he will
never achieve anything worthwhile." -- Walter Chrysler

[David Schwartz]

On Jul 3, 2:52*pm, Antoninus Twink <[e-mail]:

The question was topical both in clc (which discusses all of C, not just
the subset defined by the ISO standard) and in cup. The OP chose to post
it in clc, so answer it there or say nothing.

That's like arguing that this question would be topical in
alt.language.english because it's written in English. To be topical in
clc, the question has to be about the C language itself.

DS

[Richard]

David Schwartz <da****@webmaster.comwrites:

On Jul 3, 2:52Â*pm, Antoninus Twink <[e-mail]:

>The question was topical both in clc (which discusses all of C, not just
the subset defined by the ISO standard) and in cup. The OP chose to post
it in clc, so answer it there or say nothing.

That's like arguing that this question would be topical in
alt.language.english because it's written in English. To be topical in
clc, the question has to be about the C language itself.

DS

What utter nonsense. 99% of the questions are about solving problems
using the C language , NOT the C language itself.

[Barry Schwarz]

On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 18:41:38 +0200, Richard<rg****@gmail.comwrote:

>David Schwartz <da****@webmaster.comwrites:

>On Jul 3, 2:52*pm, Antoninus Twink <[e-mail]:

>>The question was topical both in clc (which discusses all of C, not just
the subset defined by the ISO standard) and in cup. The OP chose to post
it in clc, so answer it there or say nothing.

That's like arguing that this question would be topical in
alt.language.english because it's written in English. To be topical in
clc, the question has to be about the C language itself.

DS

What utter nonsense. 99% of the questions are about solving problems
using the C language , NOT the C language itself.

Regardless of what the questions are actually about, they should be
about solving problems using the C language, not about using
extensions provided by various implementations. And just so we all
discuss the same language is, there happens to be standard that
defines it.
Remove del for email