By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
432,474 Members | 966 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 432,474 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Why is it dangerous?

P: n/a
'evening.

I'm not new to C and have been programming in it since I was 8 but
here's a strange problem I've never seen before.

When I compile a program from our C course with a windows compiler
there is no problem but when I try to compile it with a linux compiler
it complains that

a_03.c:(.text+0x4d): warning: the `gets' function is dangerous
and should not be used.

Is linux more dangerous than windows? Where can I download a
non dangerous gets function? I have never used gets before is
there undefined behavior somewhere?
Here is a trimmed down example program from my assignment that
demonstrates the problem

#include <stdio.h>
#include <malloc.h>

void main()
{
char *string;
printf("enter string (max 2000 chars): ");
fflush(stdin);
fflush(stdout);
string = (char *)malloc(2001);
if(!string) exit(1);
gets(string);
printf("you entered: %s\n", string);
free(string);
exit(0);
}

On windows with TurboC and Lcc no error is printed. On linux with
gcc it says gets is dangerous.

Please advise my instructor says gcc is overly pedantic.
Aug 10 '08
Share this Question
Share on Google+
233 Replies


P: n/a
In article <sl*******************@nospam.invalid>,
Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrote:
>On 16 Aug 2008 at 21:47, ke**********@gmail.com wrote:
>>This study found that, using the data between 1995-1999 in a country
where back seat belts were not mandatory (in this case the data
came from Japan), the front seat passenger's death rate
increase by more than 75% if back seat was not wearing a seat belt.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15094416

You've completely missed the point.
Of course. This is clc. What did you expect?
>I'm not arguing for a second that having all occupants of a car wear
seatbelts isn't an extremely efficacious safety measure that anyone with
half a brain cell would insist upon when they were driving.
I'm geninely confused by this. I don't think most American cars have
back seat seatbelts. I may just be out of touch with modern trends.
>The question was whether the state should *force* people to avoid taking
the risk.
This gets into politics and life views. I'm a little surprised to see
it being discussed here. But let me just say that the idea that the
world *should* be made as safe as possible - and that government is the
tool that should be employed to bring this about - does have a lot of
appeal. Like "int main()", it is kinda hard to argue against it.
>If I go abseiling and trust my life to someone I know to be drunk or
What is "abseiling"? A typo?

Aug 17 '08 #201

P: n/a
On Aug 17, 7:02*am, "Serve Lau" <ni...@qinqin.comwrote:
>
This study found that, using the data between 1995-1999...

you're assuming that accidents are always frontal which they arent. Most of
the time people try to steer away or are hit by a car from the side who was
trying to steer away. crash test dummies dont do that.
I did not assume anything. The statistics takes into account
the different types of collision and their relative occurrence
frequency.

Fact is, two separate studies (one says 80%, the other says 75%)
the front seat passenger dies 80% (or 75%) more likely when
the rear passenger isn't buckeled in. And that's with all
types of collisions considered, in an entire country,
with rural and urban and short trips and long trips all combined.

Aug 17 '08 #202

P: n/a
On Aug 17, 8:07*am, Antoninus Twink <nos...@nospam.invalidwrote:
>
On 16 Aug 2008 at 21:47, kenny.rio...@gmail.com wrote:
This study found that, using the data between 1995-1999 in a country
where back seat belts were not mandatory (in this case the data
came from Japan), the front seat passenger's death rate
increase by more than 75% if back seat was not wearing a seat belt.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15094416

You've completely missed the point.
No, *you* missed the point. Someone pointed this possibility to you.
You said "has this really happened?" and you asked for "citation".
So here is the citation. Now you say it's pointless. What's it gonna
be?
>
I'm not arguing for a second that having all occupants of a car wear
seatbelts isn't an extremely efficacious safety measure that anyone with
half a brain cell would insist upon when they were driving.

The question was whether the state should *force* people
to avoid taking the risk.
Argue with your congressman then (if you're in Canada, UK, Japan,
or some of the select US states), or just be happy (if you live
elsewhere)
Aug 17 '08 #203

P: n/a

"Joachim Schmitz" <no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrote in message
news:g8**********@online.de...
Antoninus Twink wrote:
>On 16 Aug 2008 at 21:47, ke**********@gmail.com wrote:
>>>This study found that, using the data between 1995-1999 in a country
where back seat belts were not mandatory (in this case the data
came from Japan), the front seat passenger's death rate
increase by more than 75% if back seat was not wearing a seat belt.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15094416

You've completely missed the point.

I'm not arguing for a second that having all occupants of a car wear
seatbelts isn't an extremely efficacious safety measure that anyone
with half a brain cell would insist upon when they were driving.

The question was whether the state should *force* people to avoid
taking the risk.

If I go abseiling and trust my life to someone I know to be drunk or
incompetent, should that be illegal? If I choose to drive allowing the
person in the seat behind me not to wear a seatbelt, should that be
illegal?

Committing suizide _is_ illegal. The attempt gets punished.
The dead body gets locked up forever.

Aug 17 '08 #204

P: n/a
On 17 Aug 2008 at 13:14, Kenny McCormack wrote:
Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrote:
>>The question was whether the state should *force* people to avoid taking
the risk.

But let me just say that the idea that the world *should* be made as
safe as possible - and that government is the tool that should be
employed to bring this about - does have a lot of appeal. Like "int
main()", it is kinda hard to argue against it.
Well, not really. The state shouldn't ban something just because it's
dangerous. The state should trust people to make their own judgment
about what level of personal risk they want to take, insofar as it
doesn't seriously affect others. It's just the difference between a
liberal society and a totalitarian one.
>>If I go abseiling and trust my life to someone I know to be drunk or

What is "abseiling"? A typo?
I don't think so?

Aug 17 '08 #205

P: n/a
On 17 Aug 2008 at 13:30, ke**********@gmail.com wrote:
No, *you* missed the point. Someone pointed this possibility to you.
You said "has this really happened?" and you asked for "citation".
So here is the citation. Now you say it's pointless. What's it gonna
be?
Oops, yes, sorry. It's relevant to that, you're right.
>The question was whether the state should *force* people
to avoid taking the risk.

Argue with your congressman then (if you're in Canada, UK, Japan,
or some of the select US states), or just be happy (if you live
elsewhere)
Unfortunately, once a freedom has been removed from the individual by
the state, history shows that it's very hard indeed to get the state to
give it back.

Aug 17 '08 #206

P: n/a
In article <sl*******************@nospam.invalid>,
Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrote:
>On 17 Aug 2008 at 13:14, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrote:
>>>The question was whether the state should *force* people to avoid taking
the risk.

But let me just say that the idea that the world *should* be made as
safe as possible - and that government is the tool that should be
employed to bring this about - does have a lot of appeal. Like "int
main()", it is kinda hard to argue against it.

Well, not really. The state shouldn't ban something just because it's
dangerous. The state should trust people to make their own judgment
about what level of personal risk they want to take, insofar as it
doesn't seriously affect others. It's just the difference between a
liberal society and a totalitarian one.
I don't doubt that you (quite sensibly) believe that (and I'm not saying
I agree or disagree). But I'm saying that the alternative view (the one
described above - i.e., that the world *should* be idiot-proofed) is a
reasonable one to hold - and one that many do hold.

Just like the view that one should not cast the return value of malloc().

Heh - I think I've just run out of clc-valid analogies...
>>>If I go abseiling and trust my life to someone I know to be drunk or

What is "abseiling"? A typo?

I don't think so?
Then what is it?

Aug 17 '08 #207

P: n/a
On 17 Aug 2008 at 17:54, Kenny McCormack wrote:
Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrote:
>>On 17 Aug 2008 at 13:14, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>>What is "abseiling"? A typo?

I don't think so?

Then what is it?
$ dict abseil
1 definition found

From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:

abseil
n : a descent down a nearly vertical surface by using a doubled
rope that is coiled around the body and attached to some
higher point
v : lower oneself with a double rope coiled around the body from
a mountainside; "The ascent was easy--roping down the
mountain would be much more difficult and dangerous";
"You have to learn how to abseil when you want to do
technical climbing" [syn: {rappel}, {rope down}]

Aug 17 '08 #208

P: n/a
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
"Joachim Schmitz" <no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrote in message
news:g8**********@online.de...
>Antoninus Twink wrote:
>>On 16 Aug 2008 at 21:47, ke**********@gmail.com wrote:
This study found that, using the data between 1995-1999 in a
country where back seat belts were not mandatory (in this case
the data came from Japan), the front seat passenger's death rate
increase by more than 75% if back seat was not wearing a seat
belt. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15094416

You've completely missed the point.

I'm not arguing for a second that having all occupants of a car wear
seatbelts isn't an extremely efficacious safety measure that anyone
with half a brain cell would insist upon when they were driving.

The question was whether the state should *force* people to avoid
taking the risk.

If I go abseiling and trust my life to someone I know to be drunk or
incompetent, should that be illegal? If I choose to drive allowing
the person in the seat behind me not to wear a seatbelt, should
that be illegal?

Committing suizide _is_ illegal. The attempt gets punished.

The dead body gets locked up forever.
8-). I said: "the attempt gets punished", of course I meant "the failed
attempt gets punished"

Bye, Jojo
Aug 17 '08 #209

P: n/a
Antoninus Twink wrote:
On 17 Aug 2008 at 17:54, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrote:
>>On 17 Aug 2008 at 13:14, Kenny McCormack wrote:
What is "abseiling"? A typo?

I don't think so?

Then what is it?

$ dict abseil
1 definition found

From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:

abseil
n : a descent down a nearly vertical surface by using a doubled
rope that is coiled around the body and attached to some
higher point
v : lower oneself with a double rope coiled around the body from
a mountainside; "The ascent was easy--roping down the
mountain would be much more difficult and dangerous";
"You have to learn how to abseil when you want to do
technical climbing" [syn: {rappel}, {rope down}]
Apparently lend from the German language, in which it does have exactly the
same meaning and even spelling.

Bye, Jojo
Aug 17 '08 #210

P: n/a
"Joachim Schmitz" <no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrites:
Antoninus Twink wrote:
[...]
>
Utter nonsense.
[...]

Please stop feeding the troll.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Aug 17 '08 #211

P: n/a
"Kenny McCormack" <ga*****@shell.xmission.comwrote in message
news:g8**********@news.xmission.com...
In article <sl*******************@nospam.invalid>,
Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrote:
>>On 17 Aug 2008 at 13:14, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>>Antoninus Twink <no****@nospam.invalidwrote:
The question was whether the state should *force* people to avoid taking
the risk.

But let me just say that the idea that the world *should* be made as
safe as possible - and that government is the tool that should be
employed to bring this about - does have a lot of appeal. Like "int
main()", it is kinda hard to argue against it.

Well, not really. The state shouldn't ban something just because it's
dangerous. The state should trust people to make their own judgment
about what level of personal risk they want to take, insofar as it
doesn't seriously affect others. It's just the difference between a
liberal society and a totalitarian one.

I don't doubt that you (quite sensibly) believe that (and I'm not saying
I agree or disagree). But I'm saying that the alternative view (the one
described above - i.e., that the world *should* be idiot-proofed) is a
reasonable one to hold - and one that many do hold.
Are you in favor of restaurants being forced to stick corks on the end of
there forks and knifes because somebody might be able to poke their eye out?
It's not the restaurants fault if somebody accidentally blinds themselves
with a spoon or something... Also, cars with no steering wheels... Humm...
Think along the lines of:
Q: Mr. Automaker, I understand you create cars with steering wheels, is that
correct?
------
A: Yes Sir.

Q: Did your so-called steering wheel allow the now deceased Mr. Smith to
turn into and drive right off a cliff?
------
A: Yes Sir.

Q: Mr. Automaker, since you make cars with steering wheels, and that device
allowed Mr. Smith to kill himself, the only possible conclusion is that its
all your fault! You careless murderer!
------
A: Bullshi%

LOL! :^)

[...]

Aug 18 '08 #212

P: n/a
"Joachim Schmitz" <no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrote in message
news:g8**********@online.de...
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>"Joachim Schmitz" <no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrote in message
news:g8**********@online.de...
>>Antoninus Twink wrote:
On 16 Aug 2008 at 21:47, ke**********@gmail.com wrote:
>This study found that, using the data between 1995-1999 in a
>country where back seat belts were not mandatory (in this case
>the data came from Japan), the front seat passenger's death rate
>increase by more than 75% if back seat was not wearing a seat
>belt. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15094416

You've completely missed the point.

I'm not arguing for a second that having all occupants of a car wear
seatbelts isn't an extremely efficacious safety measure that anyone
with half a brain cell would insist upon when they were driving.

The question was whether the state should *force* people to avoid
taking the risk.

If I go abseiling and trust my life to someone I know to be drunk or
incompetent, should that be illegal? If I choose to drive allowing
the person in the seat behind me not to wear a seatbelt, should
that be illegal?

Committing suizide _is_ illegal. The attempt gets punished.

The dead body gets locked up forever.

8-). I said: "the attempt gets punished", of course I meant "the failed
attempt gets punished"
Indeed! =^D
I have never really understood how somebody could possibly fail to commit
suicide. I mean if you really want to die, and you fail, well, then you
really have a solid reason to kill yourself! Ouch.

Aug 18 '08 #213

P: n/a
"Ian Collins" <ia******@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:6g*************@mid.individual.net...
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>Ian Collins said:
>>Joachim Schmitz wrote:
Antoninus Twink wrote:
On 11 Aug 2008 at 22:17, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>Willem said:
>>The person driviong that other car would, if you were killed, have
>>the very traumatic experience of having caused your death, as
>>opposed to just causing you some injuries had you worn your
>>seatbelt.
>They might also suffer the even more traumatic experience of having
>you smash through their windscreen, injuring or even killing them.
Oh come on, has this ever actually happened?
Yes it surely has. It has also happend that passengers not using their
belt injured/killed the (belted) driver in such accidents.

Which is why sensible countries require back seat passengers to wear
seatbelts. How does this relate to C by the way?

It's an analogy to do with the use of gets(), first raised in this thread
by Eric Sosman, in which he suggests that those who use gets() despite
its
known dangers are analogous to those who refuse to wear seatbelts. As
such, it's reasonably relevant. Although it is possible to stretch an
analogy too far (which is why "proof by analogy is fraud", as Stroustrup
rightly said), I don't think this has happened yet in the current case.
Ah. This thread had reached the point where it required interpretation!

Given the context, the requirement to wear seatbelts in the back is
quite a good one.
What happens if the driver hit the brakes for whatever reason, and the
seatbelt causes severe personal injury to the occupant(s) of the back seat?
Who gets to get sued?

Aug 18 '08 #214

P: n/a
"Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalidwrote in message
news:aD*******************@newsfe08.iad...
"Ian Collins" <ia******@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:6g*************@mid.individual.net...
>Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>Ian Collins said:

Joachim Schmitz wrote:
Antoninus Twink wrote:
>On 11 Aug 2008 at 22:17, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>Willem said:
>>>The person driviong that other car would, if you were killed, have
>>>the very traumatic experience of having caused your death, as
>>>opposed to just causing you some injuries had you worn your
>>>seatbelt.
>>They might also suffer the even more traumatic experience of having
>>you smash through their windscreen, injuring or even killing them.
>Oh come on, has this ever actually happened?
Yes it surely has. It has also happend that passengers not using their
belt injured/killed the (belted) driver in such accidents.
>
Which is why sensible countries require back seat passengers to wear
seatbelts. How does this relate to C by the way?

It's an analogy to do with the use of gets(), first raised in this
thread
by Eric Sosman, in which he suggests that those who use gets() despite
its
known dangers are analogous to those who refuse to wear seatbelts. As
such, it's reasonably relevant. Although it is possible to stretch an
analogy too far (which is why "proof by analogy is fraud", as Stroustrup
rightly said), I don't think this has happened yet in the current case.
Ah. This thread had reached the point where it required interpretation!

Given the context, the requirement to wear seatbelts in the back is
quite a good one.

What happens if the driver hit the brakes for whatever reason, and the
seatbelt causes severe personal injury to the occupant(s) of the back
seat? Who gets to get sued?
Think along the lines of whiplash of the neck... Ooops, I can't move my head
because it really hurts!

Aug 18 '08 #215

P: n/a
Chris M. Thomasson said:
"Ian Collins" <ia******@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:6g*************@mid.individual.net...
>Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>Ian Collins said:
<snip>
>>>>>
Which is why sensible countries require back seat passengers to wear
seatbelts. How does this relate to C by the way?

It's an analogy to do with the use of gets(), first raised in this
thread by Eric Sosman, in which he suggests that those who use gets()
despite its
known dangers are analogous to those who refuse to wear seatbelts. As
such, it's reasonably relevant. Although it is possible to stretch an
analogy too far (which is why "proof by analogy is fraud", as
Stroustrup rightly said), I don't think this has happened yet in the
current case.
Ah. This thread had reached the point where it required interpretation!

Given the context, the requirement to wear seatbelts in the back is
quite a good one.

What happens if the driver hit the brakes for whatever reason, and the
seatbelt causes severe personal injury to the occupant(s) of the back
seat? Who gets to get sued?
Any safety feature, even correctly used, might end up inflicting harm in
certain situations. The question is whether the feature inflicts more harm
than it prevents. In your example, if the force of braking is sufficient
to injure the seatbelt-wearer, the likelihood is that even more harm would
have been caused if the seatbelt had not been worn. The one to sue is the
one that caused a situation to arise in which the driver felt that
emergency braking was justified. (For example, if a child ran out into the
road in front of the vehicle, you might be tempted to sue the inattentive
parent.)

The analogy is now being stretched to breaking point, however. If the fgets
function is correctly used in place of the gets function (with appropriate
care being taken to handle overly long lines correctly and to deal with
the newline character), and provided that the programmer doesn't adopt
some other stupidity such as (but not limited to!) scanf("%s", s), then
the risk of a source-level buffer overrun weakness has been eliminated.

--
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
Aug 18 '08 #216

P: n/a
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
"Ian Collins" <ia******@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:6g*************@mid.individual.net...
>Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>
It's an analogy to do with the use of gets(), first raised in this
thread
by Eric Sosman, in which he suggests that those who use gets()
despite its
known dangers are analogous to those who refuse to wear seatbelts. As
such, it's reasonably relevant. Although it is possible to stretch an
analogy too far (which is why "proof by analogy is fraud", as Stroustrup
rightly said), I don't think this has happened yet in the current case.
Ah. This thread had reached the point where it required interpretation!

Given the context, the requirement to wear seatbelts in the back is
quite a good one.

What happens if the driver hit the brakes for whatever reason, and the
seatbelt causes severe personal injury to the occupant(s) of the back
seat? Who gets to get sued?
I live in New Zealand, so nobody gets sued!

--
Ian Collins.
Aug 18 '08 #217

P: n/a

"Richard Heathfield" <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote in message
news:E7******************************@bt.com...
Chris M. Thomasson said:
>"Ian Collins" <ia******@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:6g*************@mid.individual.net...
>>Richard Heathfield wrote:
Ian Collins said:
<snip>
>>>>>>
Which is why sensible countries require back seat passengers to wear
seatbelts. How does this relate to C by the way?

It's an analogy to do with the use of gets(), first raised in this
thread by Eric Sosman, in which he suggests that those who use gets()
despite its
known dangers are analogous to those who refuse to wear seatbelts. As
such, it's reasonably relevant. Although it is possible to stretch an
analogy too far (which is why "proof by analogy is fraud", as
Stroustrup rightly said), I don't think this has happened yet in the
current case.

Ah. This thread had reached the point where it required interpretation!

Given the context, the requirement to wear seatbelts in the back is
quite a good one.

What happens if the driver hit the brakes for whatever reason, and the
seatbelt causes severe personal injury to the occupant(s) of the back
seat? Who gets to get sued?

Any safety feature, even correctly used, might end up inflicting harm in
certain situations. The question is whether the feature inflicts more harm
than it prevents. In your example, if the force of braking is sufficient
to injure the seatbelt-wearer, the likelihood is that even more harm would
have been caused if the seatbelt had not been worn.
Well, if your wearing a seat-belt which cross over your chest from
right/left to lower left/right, then even a fairly moderate engagement of
the brakes would keep your torso in tact... However, your head would still
be moving forward, and the hinge would be your neck. Therefore, IMVHO, in
this specific scenario, if the seat-belt would have not been there, your
would have possibly bounced your forehead off the "soft" back-end of the
seat in front of you, and the effect on the neck would be somewhat
"absorbed" by your forehead hitting the padded back-end of the seat.

The one to sue is the
one that caused a situation to arise in which the driver felt that
emergency braking was justified. (For example, if a child ran out into the
road in front of the vehicle, you might be tempted to sue the inattentive
parent.)
Well, what about the person(s) that forced the people in the back seat to
wear a seat-belt in the first place? In my specific scenario, I personally
think that the safety device would be in a position to actually cause more
harm than prevented... This is contrived to say the least!

The analogy is now being stretched to breaking point, however. If the
fgets
function is correctly used in place of the gets function (with appropriate
care being taken to handle overly long lines correctly and to deal with
the newline character), and provided that the programmer doesn't adopt
some other stupidity such as (but not limited to!) scanf("%s", s), then
the risk of a source-level buffer overrun weakness has been eliminated.
elimination is a strong word, however, we are dealing with programming which
has some concrete observations. The scenario of a car crash needs to be
examined to the N'th degree. Usually, a programming error can be observed
and proved rather quickly.

Am I off my rocker?

Aug 18 '08 #218

P: n/a
Ian Collins hastily wrote:
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>"Ian Collins" <ia******@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:6g*************@mid.individual.net...
>>Richard Heathfield wrote:

It's an analogy to do with the use of gets(), first raised in
this
>>>thread
by Eric Sosman, in which he suggests that those who use gets()
despite its
known dangers are analogous to those who refuse to wear
seatbelts.
>>>As such, it's reasonably relevant. Although it is possible to
stretch an analogy too far (which is why "proof by analogy is
fraud", as Stroustrup rightly said), I don't think this has
happened yet in the current case.

Ah. This thread had reached the point where it required
interpretation!

Given the context, the requirement to wear seatbelts in the back
is
>>quite a good one.

What happens if the driver hit the brakes for whatever reason, and
the seatbelt causes severe personal injury to the occupant(s) of
the
>back seat? Who gets to get sued?

I live in New Zealand, so nobody gets sued!
Yay New Zealand!

(of course w.r.t. fines in New Zealand if the passanger isn't wearing
a seatbelt and is over 15(?) years of age they recieve it, so I'd say
that they'd be responsible for it, not the driver)
Aug 18 '08 #219

P: n/a
Keith Thompson wrote:
"Joachim Schmitz" <no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrites:
>Antoninus Twink wrote:
[...]
>>
Utter nonsense.
[...]

Please stop feeding the troll.
Please leave this to my discretion.
Aug 18 '08 #220

P: n/a
"Joachim Schmitz" <no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrites:
Keith Thompson wrote:
>"Joachim Schmitz" <no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrites:
>>Antoninus Twink wrote:
[...]
>>>
Utter nonsense.
[...]

Please stop feeding the troll.

Please leave this to my discretion.
I never implied that it isn't up to your discretion.
I merely made a request.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks***@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Aug 18 '08 #221

P: n/a
Keith Thompson wrote:
"Joachim Schmitz" <no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrites:
>Keith Thompson wrote:
>>"Joachim Schmitz" <no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrites:
Antoninus Twink wrote:
[...]

Utter nonsense.
[...]

Please stop feeding the troll.

Please leave this to my discretion.

I never implied that it isn't up to your discretion.
I merely made a request.
Sorry, point taken. I seem to be overly thin skinned lately...
Aug 18 '08 #222

P: n/a
In article <ln************@nuthaus.mib.org>,
Keith Thompson <ks***@mib.orgwrote:
>"Joachim Schmitz" <no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrites:
>Keith Thompson wrote:
>>"Joachim Schmitz" <no*********@schmitz-digital.dewrites:
Antoninus Twink wrote:
[...]

Utter nonsense.
[...]

Please stop feeding the troll.

Please leave this to my discretion.

I never implied that it isn't up to your discretion.
I merely made a request.
I see what you mean, but it is a fine line you tread.

Like it or not, you (and your cronies) have set yourselves up as
newsgroup cops in CLC - and you enforce the topicality rules with
aplomb. So, when you speak, it carries somewhat more force than when
Joe Newbie speaks. People are expected to follow your directives, just
as they are expected to follow the directives issued by real life cops.

Aug 18 '08 #223

P: n/a
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>
If you'd looked a little closer, you'd have found that C99's usage of the
word "abbreviated" (which has the same root as "abbreviation") clearly
disagrees with the way I was taught at school. (See 7.23.3.5(3) for
details.) Thus, this discussion has uncovered a flaw in the Standard! So
it seems it may conceivably have been worthwhile after all. :-)
Are you sure it's a flaw in the standard rather than a flaw in your
schooling? :-)

My dictionary accepts any form of shortening as an abbreviation; an
abbreviation formed from the initial letters of words is either an
/acronym/ (if pronounceable) or an /initialism/ (if not).

What does the OED have to say?
--
Larry Jones

Years from now when I'm successful and happy, ...and he's in
prison... I hope I'm not too mature to gloat. -- Calvin
Aug 18 '08 #224

P: n/a
In article <-I******************************@bt.com>,
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>If you'd looked a little closer, you'd have found that C99's usage of the
word "abbreviated" (which has the same root as "abbreviation") clearly
disagrees with the way I was taught at school.
If you consider that root you will see that it consists of "ad" (to)
and "brevis" (short), so it's not surprising that it has a very
general meaning covering any kind of shortening. If it has a more
specific meaning amongst English teachers, they have failed to impose
it on the rest of us.

-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.
Aug 18 '08 #225

P: n/a
la************@siemens.com said:
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>>
If you'd looked a little closer, you'd have found that C99's usage of
the word "abbreviated" (which has the same root as "abbreviation")
clearly disagrees with the way I was taught at school. (See 7.23.3.5(3)
for details.) Thus, this discussion has uncovered a flaw in the
Standard! So it seems it may conceivably have been worthwhile after all.
:-)

Are you sure it's a flaw in the standard rather than a flaw in your
schooling? :-)
Yeah. The chances of my having learned anything wrong at school are
basically zero. The teachers were perfect and knew everything.
My dictionary accepts any form of shortening as an abbreviation; an
abbreviation formed from the initial letters of words is either an
/acronym/ (if pronounceable) or an /initialism/ (if not).

What does the OED have to say?
The OED says "I cost 450". :-)

--
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
Aug 19 '08 #226

P: n/a
la************@siemens.com writes:
Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:
>>
If you'd looked a little closer, you'd have found that C99's usage of the
word "abbreviated" (which has the same root as "abbreviation") clearly
disagrees with the way I was taught at school. (See 7.23.3.5(3) for
details.) Thus, this discussion has uncovered a flaw in the Standard! So
it seems it may conceivably have been worthwhile after all. :-)

Are you sure it's a flaw in the standard rather than a flaw in your
schooling? :-)

My dictionary accepts any form of shortening as an abbreviation; an
abbreviation formed from the initial letters of words is either an
/acronym/ (if pronounceable) or an /initialism/ (if not).

What does the OED have to say?
abbreviation

1. The act of shortening, reducing in length.
2. The result of abbreviating; an abbreviated or reduced form; short
summary, abridgement.
3. esp. A shortened form of a spoken word, or written symbol; a part
of a word or symbol standing for the whole.

abbreviated

1. Shortened, cut short, in the various senses of the vb.

and so we also need:

abbreviate

To make shorter, shorten, cut short in any way.

3. trans. To shorten by cutting off a part; to cut short.
d. Of words spoken or written, or symbols of any kind: To contract,
so that a part stands for the whole. The common mod. use.

(Obsolete and obscure uses removed -- hence the missing numbers.)
This is from the on-line 1989 second edition.

--
Ben.
Aug 19 '08 #227

P: n/a
On Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:37:57 -0700 (PDT), Paul Hsieh posted:
On Aug 14, 10:16*pm, s0s...@gmail.com wrote:
>So let me see if I got this right...

Off-topic:

* - Networking in C
* - Threading in C
* - Creating directories in C
* - Future C standards
* - Programs written in C

You forgot:

- The general practice of programming and computer science
- C compilers
- Any real world program written in C outside of command line
utilities
- Comparisons of C with any other language
>On-topic:

* - Prototyping main()
* - (Not) casting malloc() calls
* - Proper use of English words
* - Nationalities abbreviations

You forgot:

- Complaining about google groups
- Complaining about signatures
- Bible study -- err, I mean ANSI standard recitations.
Funny stuff. I was perusing the later messages and thinking that "the
topic" had widened up.

Never heard of a usanian.
--
We must respect the other fellow's religion, but only in the sense and to
the extent that we respect his theory that his wife is beautiful and his
children smart. 5
H. L. Mencken
Aug 19 '08 #228

P: n/a
"Ian Collins" <ia******@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:6g*************@mid.individual.net...
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>"Ian Collins" <ia******@hotmail.comwrote in message
news:6g*************@mid.individual.net...
>>Richard Heathfield wrote:

It's an analogy to do with the use of gets(), first raised in this
thread
by Eric Sosman, in which he suggests that those who use gets()
despite its
known dangers are analogous to those who refuse to wear seatbelts. As
such, it's reasonably relevant. Although it is possible to stretch an
analogy too far (which is why "proof by analogy is fraud", as
Stroustrup
rightly said), I don't think this has happened yet in the current case.

Ah. This thread had reached the point where it required interpretation!

Given the context, the requirement to wear seatbelts in the back is
quite a good one.

What happens if the driver hit the brakes for whatever reason, and the
seatbelt causes severe personal injury to the occupant(s) of the back
seat? Who gets to get sued?

I live in New Zealand, so nobody gets sued!
You mean there are no ambulance chasers in New Zealand?

;^)

Aug 19 '08 #229

P: n/a
Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>
You mean there are no ambulance chasers in New Zealand?
Not really, we've managed to remain civilised so far...

--
Ian Collins.
Aug 19 '08 #230

P: n/a
In article <e9**********************************@m44g2000hsc. googlegroups.com>,
<s0****@gmail.comwrote:
>On Aug 15, 3:06*pm, Flash Gordon <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrote:
<snip>
>>
You are BOTH just giving the trolls an excuse for more bitching about
topicality rules and hypocrisy and this time they have a point. You BOTH
know that this is completely inappropriate for this group.

Be careful about what you say. Are you referring to me when you say
"troll"? I'm not (at least no one's ever called me that before).
You're deliberately calling a "troll" someone who isn't one and for no
reason. That makes *you* a troll.

<snip>

Sebastian
Once you start speaking the truth around here, you get branded a "troll".
(this is not argumentation; this is cold, hard, fact)

Get used to it. Live it! Enjoy it!

Aug 25 '08 #231

P: n/a
In article <4j************@news.flash-gordon.me.uk>,
Flash Gordon <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrote:
....
>It was not because of you posting that list.

To be honest I can't remember enough posts by you to have formed *any*
opinion about you. I've no idea if this is because of my bad memory or
if you have not posted enough to this group for me to have formed an
opinion.
Don't worry - you (s0suk3) do eventually get branded "troll".
Feel honored by this!

Aug 25 '08 #232

P: n/a
In article <25**********************************@z72g2000hsb. googlegroups.com>,
Paul Hsieh <we******@gmail.comwrote:
>On Aug 14, 10:16*pm, s0s...@gmail.com wrote:
>So let me see if I got this right...

Off-topic:

* - Networking in C
* - Threading in C
* - Creating directories in C
* - Future C standards
* - Programs written in C

You forgot:

- The general practice of programming and computer science
- C compilers
- Any real world program written in C outside of command line
utilities
- Comparisons of C with any other language
>On-topic:

* - Prototyping main()
* - (Not) casting malloc() calls
* - Proper use of English words
* - Nationalities abbreviations

You forgot:

- Complaining about google groups
- Complaining about signatures
- Bible study -- err, I mean ANSI standard recitations.
Encore! Encore!

A note re: your last (Bible study). I know many of you already know
this, but the newbies need to be alerted. The fact is that many (most?)
of the regs here are in fact, in real life, bible thumpers (the kind of
idiots currently running the US government). This should come as no
surprise (as what they preach here is very much like a real world religon).

Aug 25 '08 #233

P: n/a
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:13:20 +0000 (UTC), Kenny McCormack posted:
In article <e9**********************************@m44g2000hsc. googlegroups.com>,
<s0****@gmail.comwrote:
>>On Aug 15, 3:06*pm, Flash Gordon <sp**@flash-gordon.me.ukwrote:
<snip>
>>>
You are BOTH just giving the trolls an excuse for more bitching about
topicality rules and hypocrisy and this time they have a point. You BOTH
know that this is completely inappropriate for this group.

Be careful about what you say. Are you referring to me when you say
"troll"? I'm not (at least no one's ever called me that before).
You're deliberately calling a "troll" someone who isn't one and for no
reason. That makes *you* a troll.

<snip>

Sebastian

Once you start speaking the truth around here, you get branded a "troll".
(this is not argumentation; this is cold, hard, fact)

Get used to it. Live it! Enjoy it!
I come here to read news from the C perspective and endure the opinion of
others that think I turn to stone as the sun rises. I don't get stoned
before 4:20, unless x is in texas.
--
When a new source of taxation is found it never means, in practice, that
the old source is abandoned. It merely means that the politicians have two
ways of milking the taxpayer where they had one before. 8
H. L. Mencken
Aug 27 '08 #234

233 Replies

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.