Infrequently asked questions

[jacob navia]

In his web pages, D. E. Knuth wrote this:
(http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/iaq.html)

Infrequently Asked Questions

1. Why does my country have the right to be occupying Iraq?
2. Why should my country not support an international court of justice?
3. Is my country not strong enough to achieve its aims fairly?
4. When the leaders of a country cause it to do terrible things,
what is the best way to restore the honor of that country?
5. Is it possible for potential new leaders to raise questions about
their country's possible guilt, without committing political suicide?
6. Do I deserve retribution from aggrieved people whose lives have
been ruined by actions that my leaders have taken without my consent?
7. How can I best help set in motion a process by which reparations
are made to people who have been harmed by unjust deeds of my country?
8. If day after day goes by with nobody discussing uncomfortable
questions like these, won't the good people of my country be guilty of
making things worse?

[Ian Collins]

jacob navia wrote:

{political stuff]

Why post that here?

--
Ian Collins

[jacob navia]

Ian Collins wrote:

jacob navia wrote:

{political stuff]

Why post that here?

Why?

See question 8:

If day after day goes by with nobody discussing uncomfortable questions
like these, won't the good people of my country be guilty of making
things worse?

Knuth is a computer scientist, that until now never openly
took a political position.

I think that this change is significant, and represents a change
in somebody everybody knows here. We discussed here his books,
and I think it isn't without interest to quote him on this.

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

[Ian Collins]

jacob navia wrote:

Ian Collins wrote:

>jacob navia wrote:

{political stuff]

Why post that here?

Why?

See question 8:

If day after day goes by with nobody discussing uncomfortable questions
like these, won't the good people of my country be guilty of making
things worse?

This is an international forum. Most of the questions are irrelevant
for those of us living in small, peaceful democratic nations who have
never invaded anyone.

--
Ian Collins

[Antoninus Twink]

On 15 Oct 2008 at 22:46, jacob navia wrote:

In his web pages, D. E. Knuth wrote this:

1. Why does my country have the right to be occupying Iraq?

[etc.]

I'm really not sure what the point of this is.

There's no reasoned argument in this list, just a pile of emotive mush.
Lots of people will already agree with his sentiments, some people will
disagree with them. It's hard to imagine anyone's opinion being changed
by it, since there's no logical argument being put forward to convince
them.

Everyone has the right to political expression, even famous computer
scientists. You just wonder why he'd bother putting something so trite
on his website.

[jacob navia]

Antoninus Twink wrote:

On 15 Oct 2008 at 22:46, jacob navia wrote:

>In his web pages, D. E. Knuth wrote this:

1. Why does my country have the right to be occupying Iraq?

[etc.]

I'm really not sure what the point of this is.

There's no reasoned argument in this list, just a pile of emotive mush.
Lots of people will already agree with his sentiments, some people will
disagree with them. It's hard to imagine anyone's opinion being changed
by it, since there's no logical argument being put forward to convince
them.

Everyone has the right to political expression, even famous computer
scientists. You just wonder why he'd bother putting something so trite
on his website.

Knuth is a computer scientist, not a good political analyst/historian.

His views are solely based on moral grounds. Note question 1,

Why does my country have the right to be occupying Iraq?

He doesn't analyze the war, pinpoints the people that are
making a profit from this act, nor he names any administration.

But he does ask the right question, the question of the right of
a big country to invade a small one. The question of the silence
of everyone concerning the daily killing going on in that country.

I know this is off topic, but it is precisely that the tragedy.
It is nowhere on topic. Everyone goes on making AS IF nothing
serious would happen.

I find the position of Knuth correct, correct in the moral sense,
and I was surprised when I saw that, I just did not expect it.

And then I reflected that it would be nice to remember that
silence is surely not a good reaction to this kind of
atrocity.
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[Flash Gordon]

jacob navia wrote, On 15/10/08 23:54:

Ian Collins wrote:

>jacob navia wrote:

{political stuff]

Why post that here?

Why?

See question 8:

If day after day goes by with nobody discussing uncomfortable questions
like these, won't the good people of my country be guilty of making
things worse?

I discus politics, just not here.

Knuth is a computer scientist, that until now never openly
took a political position.

So?

I think that this change is significant, and represents a change
in somebody everybody knows here. We discussed here his books,
and I think it isn't without interest to quote him on this.

It may well be interesting somewhere that politics is topical. He might
have written interesting books on Coral 66 as well, and those would be
about computing, but they also would not be topical here.

There are plenty of places where politics are either topical or
acceptable, and at least some of them have people who are interested in
computing and even programming in C as well.
--
Flash Gordon
If spamming me sent it to sm**@spam.causeway.com
If emailing me use my reply-to address
See the comp.lang.c Wiki hosted by me at http://clc-wiki.net/

[Keith Thompson]

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

In his web pages, D. E. Knuth wrote this:
(http://www-cs-faculty.stanford.edu/~knuth/iaq.html)

Infrequently Asked Questions

1. Why does my country have the right to be occupying Iraq?

[...]

8. If day after day goes by with nobody discussing uncomfortable
questions like these, won't the good people of my country be guilty of
making things worse?

9. Why do newsgroups other than comp.lang.c exist?

There is no shortage of people discussing these issues, myself
included. Most of us, unlike you, have the common sense not to
discuss them *here*.

On a partially related issue, it's ironic that you post using a
"nospam.com" e-mail address. First, though your most recent message
is not actually spam (unless you've posted it to multiple newsgroups),
it's certainly inappropriate and unsolicited. Second, nospam.com is
an actual domain; it's likely that you're cauing their incoming mail
servers to receive some of the spam that was intended for you. If you
want to avoid spam by using an invalid address, try "nospam.invalid".

--
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"

[Peter Nilsson]

jacob navia <[e-mail]:

Ian Collins wrote:

jacob navia wrote:

{political stuff]

Why post that here?

Why?

Yes why? Have you also spammed comp.compilers.lcc?
[checks] I see you haven't. Now I wonder why that is...

--
Peter

[Richard]

Flash Gordon <sm**@spam.causeway.comwrites:

jacob navia wrote, On 15/10/08 23:54:

>Ian Collins wrote:

>>jacob navia wrote:

{political stuff]

Why post that here?

Why?

See question 8:

If day after day goes by with nobody discussing uncomfortable questions
like these, won't the good people of my country be guilty of making
things worse?

I discus politics, just not here.

Good for you. Jacob wishes to in one thread with people he discusses
things with every day. Maybe he wants ISO C programmers views. Well,
there's the place to get them.

>

>Knuth is a computer scientist, that until now never openly
took a political position.

So?

>I think that this change is significant, and represents a change
in somebody everybody knows here. We discussed here his books,
and I think it isn't without interest to quote him on this.

It may well be interesting somewhere that politics is topical. He might
have written interesting books on Coral 66 as well, and those would be
about computing, but they also would not be topical here.

There are plenty of places where politics are either topical or
acceptable, and at least some of them have people who are interested in
computing and even programming in C as well.

Time to kill thread 0.1 seconds. Time for you to construct your nagging
reply about 2 minutes.

[NathanCBaker]

On Oct 15, 6:50*pm, Ian Collins <[e-mail]:

jacob navia wrote:

{political stuff]

Why post that here?

--
Ian Collins

I believe it is almost a "tradition" for nerds to promote political
views via strictly technical channels. I just recently browsed
http://www.linuxhq.org/ and received this:

McCain is a moron.
Do you really want a walking tampon as vice president?
All who vote for them must be uneducated.
Maybe you were classmates at some point.

#!/usr/bin/perl

use warnings;
use strict;
use Election::Rigged;

my $economy = 0;
my @uhaul;

if ($elected->McCain)
{
$economy--;
push(@uhaul, @possessions);
rename($us, $canada);
exit 1;
}

while ($economy < 100)
{
$economy++;
}

undef @uhaul;
exit 0;

Nathan.

[Eric Sosman]

jacob navia wrote:

>
Knuth is a computer scientist, that until now never openly
took a political position.

s/now/long ago, I forget exactly when, but it's been years,/

I think that this change is significant, and represents a change
in somebody everybody knows here. We discussed here his books,
and I think it isn't without interest to quote him on this.

The change you have just bumped into is not new: the IAQ
have been on his home page for a long time, albeit unnoticed
by the inattentive. And the fact that somebody is acquainted
with computers, is even a highly respected if not revered
authority on and guide to their use, does not make his ideas
on politics or music or triangular signs topical here.

Besides, he writes ugly C.

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

[Richard Heathfield]

Ian Collins said:

jacob navia wrote:

>Ian Collins wrote:

>>jacob navia wrote:

{political stuff]

Why post that here?

Why?

See question 8:

If day after day goes by with nobody discussing uncomfortable questions
like these, won't the good people of my country be guilty of making
things worse?

This is an international forum. Most of the questions are irrelevant
for those of us living in small, peaceful democratic nations who have
never invaded anyone.

I'm struggling to think of a single example of a small, peaceful democratic
nation that never invaded anyone. Nevertheless, the OP's question - though
important - is off-topic. It is a question that SHOULD be discussed, but
that does not mean it should be discussed HERE. The distinction is an
important one.

Incidentally, when I read the subject line, I assumed the article was going
to be about Peter Seebach's IAQs. They, at least, would have been vaguely
topical.

--
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

[Richard Heathfield]

Na**********@gmail.com said:

On Oct 15, 6:50 pm, Ian Collins <[e-mail]:

>jacob navia wrote:

{political stuff]

Why post that here?

I believe it is almost a "tradition" for nerds to promote political
views via strictly technical channels.

Not the bright ones, I hope.
[quote]
I just recently browsed
http://www.linuxhq.org/ and received this:

McCain is a moron.

This isn't overly informative. Who is McCain? (I know some people will
think I'm being disingenuous, but I'm not - as far as I'm aware, McCain is
a brand of oven chip.) And is the word "moron" a medical description from
a qualified professional, or just a petty insult?

<snip>

while ($economy < 100)
{
$economy++;
}

And at this point, all respect for the poster vanishes, since what he
should have written is:

/* enforce economy's minimum acceptable level */
if($economy < 100)
{
$economy = 100;
}

--
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

[Ian Collins]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Ian Collins said:

>jacob navia wrote:

>>Ian Collins wrote:
jacob navia wrote:

{political stuff]

Why post that here?

Why?

See question 8:

If day after day goes by with nobody discussing uncomfortable questions
like these, won't the good people of my country be guilty of making
things worse?

This is an international forum. Most of the questions are irrelevant
for those of us living in small, peaceful democratic nations who have
never invaded anyone.

I'm struggling to think of a single example of a small, peaceful democratic
nation that never invaded anyone.

Try New Zealand.

--
Ian Collins

[NathanCBaker]

On Oct 16, 1:30*am, Richard Heathfield <[e-mail]:[quote]

I just recently browsed
http://www.linuxhq.org/and received this:

McCain is a moron.

This isn't overly informative. Who is McCain? (I know some people will
think I'm being disingenuous, but I'm not - as far as I'm aware, McCain is
a brand of oven chip.) And is the word "moron" a medical description from
a qualified professional, or just a petty insult?

Election-year politics in the U. S. of A. can get rather nasty. I'm
as clueless as you as to why the F/OSS crowd prefers to do some
stumping rather than allow us access to a wealth of F/OSS resources.

I guess we need to point our browsers to http://support.microsoft.com/
to keep our eyeballs free of political pandering.

Nathan.

[NathanCBaker]

On Oct 16, 1:30*am, Richard Heathfield <[e-mail]:[quote]

I just recently browsed
http://www.linuxhq.org/ and received this:

McCain is a moron.

This isn't overly informative. Who is McCain? (I know some people will
think I'm being disingenuous, but I'm not - as far as I'm aware, McCain is
a brand of oven chip.) And is the word "moron" a medical description from
a qualified professional, or just a petty insult?

He is currently a US Senator with a half-decent chance of becoming
President and he certainly is not a moron. In all honesty, his
biggest liability is bad timing.

http://www.johnmccain.com/Undecided/WhyMcCain.htm

Nathan.

[Nick Keighley]

On 16 Oct, 06:22, Richard Heathfield <[e-mail]:

Ian Collins said:

jacob navia wrote:

Ian Collins wrote:
jacob navia wrote:

>{political stuff]

>Why post that here?

Why?

See question 8:

If day after day goes by with nobody discussing uncomfortable questions
like these, won't the good people of my country be guilty of making
things worse?

This is an international forum. *Most of the questions are irrelevant
for those of us living in small, peaceful democratic nations who have
never invaded anyone.

I'm struggling to think of a single example of a small, peaceful democratic
nation that never invaded anyone. Nevertheless, the OP's question - though
important - is off-topic. It is a question that SHOULD be discussed, but
that does not mean it should be discussed HERE. The distinction is an
important one.

Island. They don't have any armed forces to invade with.

Incidentally, when I read the subject line, I assumed the article was going
to be about Peter Seebach's IAQs. They, at least, would have been vaguely
topical.

http://www.seebs.net/faqs/c-iaq.html

--
Nick Keighley

Is C an acronym?
Yes, it stands for ``C''. It's another of those funky recursive
acronyms.
-- The C IAQ

[Nick Keighley]

On 16 Oct, 00:33, Flash Gordon <[e-mail]:

[Knuth] might have written interesting books on Coral 66 as well,

I find it vanishingly unlikely that *anyone* could
write an interesting book on Coral 66. I suppose BITS
and TABLE were pretty cool. Oh, and UNION and DIFFER and MASK.
And CODE BEGIN!

stop it.

--
Nick Keighley

[Antoninus Twink]

On 15 Oct 2008 at 23:31, jacob navia wrote:

Antoninus Twink wrote:

>I'm really not sure what the point of this is.

Knuth is a computer scientist, not a good political analyst/historian.

His views are solely based on moral grounds. Note question 1,

Why does my country have the right to be occupying Iraq?

He doesn't analyze the war, pinpoints the people that are
making a profit from this act, nor he names any administration.

But he does ask the right question, the question of the right of
a big country to invade a small one. The question of the silence
of everyone concerning the daily killing going on in that country.

OK, but I don't see how just asking the question is significant - it's
not like people won't already have thought about it.

I imagine there'll be two sorts of people:

Some will say "Hell yeah, the war was illegal and immoral and we have no
right to be occupying Iraq".

Others will say "Iraq was a hostile nation that supported terrorism and
we believed before going to war that they were developing WMD. That
gave us every right to act in pre-emptive self defense".

Now the question alone achieves nothing, because opponents of Knuth's
position already think they know the answer.

Instead, it would be more productive for him to provide *evidence* and
*careful argument* to refute the specific beliefs that the second group
rely on to answer his question.

I find the position of Knuth correct, correct in the moral sense,
and I was surprised when I saw that, I just did not expect it.

Really? I don't find it surprising at all - a huge proportion of
academics hold almost identical political and socio-economic opinions,
and academia is one the least diverse political arenas there is. Is it
surprising that Knuth is part of that wide majority consensus?

[Antoninus Twink]

On 16 Oct 2008 at 5:30, Richard Heathfield wrote:

Na**********@gmail.com said:

>McCain is a moron.

This isn't overly informative. Who is McCain? (I know some people will
think I'm being disingenuous, but I'm not - as far as I'm aware,
McCain is a brand of oven chip.)

I don't think you're being disingenuous. I think you're LYING, plain and
simple.

You seem to enjoy parading your anti-Americanism in this group - or
"anti-USAnianism" as you'd probably describe it using your favorite word
that just happens to be deliberately provocative and insulting.

[Ian Collins]

Nick Keighley wrote:

On 16 Oct, 06:22, Richard Heathfield <[e-mail]:

>Ian Collins said:

>>jacob navia wrote:
Ian Collins wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
{political stuff]
Why post that here?
Why?
See question 8:
If day after day goes by with nobody discussing uncomfortable questions
like these, won't the good people of my country be guilty of making
things worse?
This is an international forum. Most of the questions are irrelevant
for those of us living in small, peaceful democratic nations who have
never invaded anyone.

I'm struggling to think of a single example of a small, peaceful democratic
nation that never invaded anyone. Nevertheless, the OP's question - though
important - is off-topic. It is a question that SHOULD be discussed, but
that does not mean it should be discussed HERE. The distinction is an
important one.

Island. They don't have any armed forces to invade with.

Or banks to pay for them...

--
Ian Collins

[Ian Collins]

Antoninus Twink wrote:

On 16 Oct 2008 at 5:30, Richard Heathfield wrote:

>Na**********@gmail.com said:

>>McCain is a moron.

This isn't overly informative. Who is McCain? (I know some people will
think I'm being disingenuous, but I'm not - as far as I'm aware,
McCain is a brand of oven chip.)

I don't think you're being disingenuous. I think you're LYING, plain and
simple.

No, he isn't. McCain is a brand of oven chip.

--
Ian Collins

[Richard]

Richard Heathfield <rj*@see.sig.invalidwrites:
[quote]
Na**********@gmail.com said:

>On Oct 15, 6:50 pm, Ian Collins <[e-mail]:

>>jacob navia wrote:

{political stuff]

Why post that here?

I believe it is almost a "tradition" for nerds to promote political
views via strictly technical channels.

Not the bright ones, I hope.

>I just recently browsed
http://www.linuxhq.org/ and received this:

>McCain is a moron.

This isn't overly informative. Who is McCain? (I know some people will
think I'm being disingenuous, but I'm not - as far as I'm aware, McCain is
a brand of oven chip.) And is the word "moron" a medical description from
a qualified professional, or just a petty insult?

Disingenuous? No. You are being less than honest and preening that you
have more important things to do than follow the global news. No change
there then!

[Richard Heathfield]

Ian Collins said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>Ian Collins said:

>>jacob navia wrote:
Ian Collins wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
>
{political stuff]
>
Why post that here?
>
Why?

See question 8:

If day after day goes by with nobody discussing uncomfortable
questions like these, won't the good people of my country be guilty of
making things worse?

This is an international forum. Most of the questions are irrelevant
for those of us living in small, peaceful democratic nations who have
never invaded anyone.

I'm struggling to think of a single example of a small, peaceful
democratic nation that never invaded anyone.

Try New Zealand.

New Zealand troops took part in the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Still, it was a good try! :-)

--
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

[Richard Heathfield]

Na**********@gmail.com said:

<snip>

Election-year politics in the U. S. of A. can get rather nasty. I'm
as clueless as you as to why the F/OSS crowd prefers to do some
stumping rather than allow us access to a wealth of F/OSS resources.

When you tar a lot of people with the same brush, the odds are good that
you're including some - or even many - people who don't deserve the tar.

I guess we need to point our browsers to http://support.microsoft.com/
to keep our eyeballs free of political pandering.

Yes - when the world's just as you want it, why lobby for change?

--
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

[Ian Collins]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Ian Collins said:

>Richard Heathfield wrote:

>>I'm struggling to think of a single example of a small, peaceful
democratic nation that never invaded anyone.

Try New Zealand.

New Zealand troops took part in the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Still, it was a good try! :-)

No, we did not. You're thinking of our brash neighbour.

--
Ian Collins

[Richard Heathfield]

Ian Collins said:

Antoninus Twink wrote:

>On 16 Oct 2008 at 5:30, Richard Heathfield wrote:

>>Na**********@gmail.com said:
McCain is a moron.
This isn't overly informative. Who is McCain? (I know some people will
think I'm being disingenuous, but I'm not - as far as I'm aware,
McCain is a brand of oven chip.)

I don't think you're being disingenuous. I think you're LYING, plain and
simple.

No, he isn't. McCain is a brand of oven chip.

Right. Incidentally, as a direct result of posting my (truthful) reply, I
have now been informed that McCain is *also* the surname of a US Senator
who is running for the presidency - so I've learned something new. Good.
(Not that I have any particular use for the information, but that's life.)

ObTopic: here's an Infrequently Asked Question that doesn't seem to be
asked nearly as often as it should.

The Standard often talks about "reserved" identifiers. For the sake of an
easy life, let's stick to the C99 Standard, since it seems that few of us
(including me) have a copy of the finalised C89 Standard.

Here are the relevant cites:

"4. Conformance
(6) A conforming implementation may have extensions (including additional
library functions), provided they do not alter the behavior of any
strictly conforming program.3)"

The (non-normative) footnote reads:

"This implies that a conforming implementation reserves no identifiers
other than those explicitly reserved in this International Standard."

Non-normative footnote 28 (regarding implementation-defined integer types)
reads:

"Implementation-defined keywords shall have the form of an identifier
reserved for any use as described in 7.1.3."

Non-normative footnote 34 reads:

"An implementation may define new keywords that provide alternative ways to
designate a basic (or any other) type; this does not violate the
requirement that all basic types be different. Implementation-defined
keywords shall have the form of an identifier reserved for any use as
described in 7.1.3."

6.11.4 reads: "Lowercase letters as escape sequences are reserved for
future standardization. Other characters may be used in extensions."
6.11.8 reads: "Pragmas whose first preprocessing token is STDC are reserved
for future standardization."
6.11.9 reads: "Macro names beginning with _ _STDC_ are reserved for future
standardization."

(We understand '_ _STDC_' to mean '__STDC'.)

And here's 7.1.3 Reserved identifiers:

"1 Each header declares or defines all identifiers listed in its
associated subclause, and optionally declares or defines identifiers
listed in its associated future library directions subclause and
identifiers which are always reserved either for any use or for use as
file scope identifiers.
- All identifiers that begin with an underscore and either an
uppercase letter or another underscore are always reserved for any use.
- All identifiers that begin with an underscore are always reserved
for use as identifiers with file scope in both the ordinary and tag name
spaces.
- Each macro name in any of the following subclauses (including the
future library directions) is reserved for use as specified if any of its
associated headers is included; unless explicitly stated otherwise (see
7.1.4).
- All identifiers with external linkage in any of the following
subclauses (including the future library directions) are always reserved
for use as identifiers with external linkage.154)
- Each identifier with file scope listed in any of the following
subclauses (including the future library directions) is reserved for use
as a macro name and as an identifier with file scope in the same name
space if any of its associated headers is included."

Non-normative footnote 157 reads, in part: "Because external identifiers
and some macro names beginning with an underscore are reserved,
implementations may provide special semantics for such names."

There are a few other relevant cites, but I hope the above will suffice to
illustrate my point. Which is...

Okay, what does "reserved" mean? It appears to me that the Standard uses
the term "reserved" in several senses. Ignoring storage reservations and
other such uses as being irrelevant, we come down to two principal usages:

(a) reserved for the implementation;
(b) reserved for future standardisation.

But the Standard does not always make it clear into which class a
particular reservation falls.

We deduce from observation of system headers that implementers tend to
assume that underscore-led identifiers are firmly in their domain, hence

# define _STDIO_H 1

(which appears in the <stdio.hof at least one of the implementations I
use). We can also deduce that ISO knows this. But this has not stopped ISO
from introducing new identifiers beginning with an underscore (e.g. _Bool,
__func__, _Complex, _Imaginary, __VA_ARGS__, _Pragma ...).

So:

What is to stop ISO from breaking an implementation by redefining the
meaning of an identfier in the implementation's reserved space?

Can an implementer provide strdup (say), as a valid and legal extension? If
so, can ISO? And if the answer to both questions is "yes", what's to stop
ISO from screwing an implementer by defining a new meaning for the
identifier in question?

Clearly, the real answer is "nothing" - snprintf being a fine example. But
is this what ISO intended?

--
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

[jacob navia]

Ian Collins wrote:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>Ian Collins said:

>>Richard Heathfield wrote:

>>>I'm struggling to think of a single example of a small, peaceful
democratic nation that never invaded anyone.
Try New Zealand.

New Zealand troops took part in the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Still, it was a good try! :-)

No, we did not. You're thinking of our brash neighbour.

That is not true.

61 troops were deployed Sept 2003 and withdrawn
Sept 2004 according to the wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multina..._force_in_Iraq

Besides look at this:
http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2003/21332.htm
New Zealand: Assistance to Iraq and Afghanistan

The United States warmly welcomes the New Zealand government's decision
to expand its contribution to reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan, and
to make a meaningful contribution to stabilization and reconstruction in
Iraq. New Zealand has also demonstrated that its commitment as a partner
in the struggle against terrorism is strong and abiding.

The United States deeply appreciates New Zealand's continuing support
for Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan, where New Zealand has now
agreed to contribute to, and possibly lead, a Provincial Reconstruction
Team and offer personnel to help train the Afghan National Army. New
Zealand's offer of an engineering unit to be attached to the UK-led
multinational division in Iraq is particularly welcome and very much
appreciated. New Zealand is also offering to supply agricultural experts
and US$580,000 in support of efforts by the Coalition Provisional
Authority to rehabilitate the Iraqi agricultural sector.
Released on June 9, 2003
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[Richard Heathfield]

Ian Collins said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>Ian Collins said:

>>Richard Heathfield wrote:

>>>I'm struggling to think of a single example of a small, peaceful
democratic nation that never invaded anyone.
Try New Zealand.

New Zealand troops took part in the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Still, it was a good try! :-)

No, we did not. You're thinking of our brash neighbour.

Well, okay, maybe I'm wrong. Let's try to find out. According to

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita..._coalition.htm

New Zealand withdrew their troops in September 2004, which would be tricky
to do if they hadn't sent them there in the first place.

Here's a 2003 news report from NZ which, although it argues that NZ troops
should *not* take part in the invasion of Iraq, nevertheless clearly
indicates that they *will* (future tense because it's an old report)
unless something is done:

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0308/S00117.htm

Taken with the above report that troops were withdrawn, we may reasonably
conclude that they did in fact go.

Okay, some counter-evidence. The next URL suggests that the troops were
sent not to invade but to provide engineering skills to reconstruction
efforts:

http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp...31&sec=apworld

Take this next one with a pinch of salt, because of the source - but it
suggests that NZ troops took part in the invasion of Afghanistan:

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/mar2004/nz-m27.shtml

Anyway, I really should stop here, for all sorts of reasons.

--
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

[Ian Collins]

jacob navia wrote:

Ian Collins wrote:

>No, we did not. You're thinking of our brash neighbour.

That is not true.

61 troops were deployed Sept 2003 and withdrawn
Sept 2004 according to the wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multina..._force_in_Iraq

That was post invasion, NZ did not participate in any fighting. The
government wouldn't have survived if they did.

...stabilization and reconstruction in Iraq....

...New Zealand has now agreed to contribute to, and possibly lead, a Provincial Reconstruction Team...

--
Ian Collins

[Pilcrow]

On Thu, 16 Oct 2008 19:13:18 +1300, Ian Collins <ia******@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Richard Heathfield wrote:

>Ian Collins said:

>>jacob navia wrote:
Ian Collins wrote:
jacob navia wrote:
>
{political stuff]
>
Why post that here?
>
Why?

See question 8:

If day after day goes by with nobody discussing uncomfortable questions
like these, won't the good people of my country be guilty of making
things worse?

This is an international forum. Most of the questions are irrelevant
for those of us living in small, peaceful democratic nations who have
never invaded anyone.

I'm struggling to think of a single example of a small, peaceful democratic
nation that never invaded anyone.

Try New Zealand.

The english invaded the territory of the maoris, conquered it and
renamed it New Zealand

[James Kuyper]

Richard Heathfield wrote:
....

What is to stop ISO from breaking an implementation by redefining the
meaning of an identfier in the implementation's reserved space?

As I understand it, nothing. When a new version of C comes out that
needs to define a new identifier, the committee has two basic choices:
use a name reserved to the user, which may require re-writing existing
user code, or use a name reserved to the implementation, which may
require re-writing existing compilers. The namespace reserved to the C
standard itself is too small; basically it consists of the names
reserved under the future directions clause, plus the pragmas that start
with STDC.

Since most compilers need to be re-written to conform to a new version
of C anyway, and since there's a lot fewer compilers than there are C
programs, the committee has generally favored grabbing a name from the
space reserved to implementations.

Can an implementer provide strdup (say), as a valid and legal extension? If
so, can ISO? And if the answer to both questions is "yes", what's to stop
ISO from screwing an implementer by defining a new meaning for the
identifier in question?

Clearly, the real answer is "nothing" - snprintf being a fine example. But
is this what ISO intended?

I think so.

[James Kuyper]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Na**********@gmail.com said:

>On Oct 15, 6:50 pm, Ian Collins <[e-mail]:

>>jacob navia wrote:

{political stuff]

Why post that here?

I believe it is almost a "tradition" for nerds to promote political
views via strictly technical channels.

Not the bright ones, I hope.

Intelligence is not the same as wisdom. Very bright people have often
made some very unwise decisions.
[quote]

>I just recently browsed
http://www.linuxhq.org/ and received this:

>McCain is a moron.

This isn't overly informative. Who is McCain? (I know some people will
think I'm being disingenuous, but I'm not - as far as I'm aware, McCain is
a brand of oven chip.) ...

You'll have to count me as one of those who think you're being
disingenuous. I've no particular interest in British politics, and pay
no attention to it, but just by osmosis I would have no trouble
recognizing the name of any person whose importance in British politics
were comparable to the importance of McCain in American politics. I
wouldn't necessarily be able to give you the person's name, but I would
be able to recognize it.

... And is the word "moron" a medical description from
a qualified professional, or just a petty insult?

The latter, of course. He has many faults, but stupidity isn't one them.

[Richard Heathfield]

James Kuyper said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>Na**********@gmail.com said:

<snip>
[quote]

>>

>>McCain is a moron.

This isn't overly informative. Who is McCain? (I know some people will
think I'm being disingenuous, but I'm not - as far as I'm aware, McCain
is
a brand of oven chip.) ...

You'll have to count me as one of those who think you're being
disingenuous.

Well, I'm not.

I've no particular interest in British politics, and pay
no attention to it, but just by osmosis I would have no trouble
recognizing the name of any person whose importance in British politics
were comparable to the importance of McCain in American politics.

The rate of osmosis is somewhat unreliable. It took until now to osmote the
name in question into an information channel that I actually use.

I'm still puzzled as to why this is being discussed in comp.lang.c, though.

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Keith Thompson]

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

Ian Collins said:

>Richard Heathfield wrote:

>>Ian Collins said:
Richard Heathfield wrote:
I'm struggling to think of a single example of a small, peaceful
democratic nation that never invaded anyone.
Try New Zealand.

New Zealand troops took part in the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

Still, it was a good try! :-)

No, we did not. You're thinking of our brash neighbour.

Well, okay, maybe I'm wrong. Let's try to find out. According to

[...]

Anyway, I really should stop here, for all sorts of reasons.

Or perhaps you should have stopped a lot sooner.

You have both been successfully trolled.

--
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"

[Dik T. Winter]

In article <7y*****************@nwrddc01.gnilink.netJames Kuyper <ja*********@verizon.netwrites:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

....

This isn't overly informative. Who is McCain? (I know some people will
think I'm being disingenuous, but I'm not - as far as I'm aware, McCain is
a brand of oven chip.) ...

You'll have to count me as one of those who think you're being
disingenuous. I've no particular interest in British politics, and pay
no attention to it, but just by osmosis I would have no trouble
recognizing the name of any person whose importance in British politics
were comparable to the importance of McCain in American politics.

Also when the name would be Heinz? Note that McCain is indeed a dominant
name in the food industry in the UK: <http://www.mccain.co.uk>.

But let me try it: Howard or Cameron...
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, [phone]
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/

[Keith Thompson]

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

I'm still puzzled as to why this is being discussed in comp.lang.c, though.

Partly, Richard, because *you* keep discussing it. jacob navia is of
course primarily at fault, but your insistence on replying *on the
topic he introduced* has helped to perpetuate this thread.

--
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"

[Nick Keighley]

On 16 Oct, 10:07, Richard Heathfield <[e-mail]:

The Standard often talks about "reserved" identifiers. For the sake of an
easy life, let's stick to the C99 Standard, since it seems that few of us
(including me) have a copy of the finalised C89 Standard.

me! me! I've got one!

--
Nick Keighley

[Richard Heathfield]

Nick Keighley said:

On 16 Oct, 10:07, Richard Heathfield <[e-mail]:

>The Standard often talks about "reserved" identifiers. For the sake of
an easy life, let's stick to the C99 Standard, since it seems that few
of us (including me) have a copy of the finalised C89 Standard.

me! me! I've got one!

Good for you, but I've just noticed what I wrote. I meant to write "...MOST
of us (including me) DON'T have a copy...".

In case anyone cares, no, I don't have a finalised C90. I do have a rather
tattered draft that I got from Dan Pop's site (it's electronically
tattered - it seems to have a few holes).

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Flash Gordon]

Nick Keighley wrote, On 16/10/08 07:57:

On 16 Oct, 00:33, Flash Gordon <[e-mail]:

>[Knuth] might have written interesting books on Coral 66 as well,

I find it vanishingly unlikely that *anyone* could
write an interesting book on Coral 66. I suppose BITS
and TABLE were pretty cool. Oh, and UNION and DIFFER and MASK.
And CODE BEGIN!

Damn, someone else here has come across the language. I'll have to find
something more obscure... :-)

stop it.

Agreed.
--
Flash Gordon
If spamming me sent it to sm**@spam.causeway.com
If emailing me use my reply-to address
See the comp.lang.c Wiki hosted by me at http://clc-wiki.net/

[Richard Bos]

"Dik T. Winter" <Di********@cwi.nlwrote:

In article <7y*****************@nwrddc01.gnilink.netJames Kuyper <ja*********@verizon.netwrites:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

...

This isn't overly informative. Who is McCain? (I know some people will
think I'm being disingenuous, but I'm not - as far as I'm aware, McCain is
a brand of oven chip.) ...

>
You'll have to count me as one of those who think you're being
disingenuous. I've no particular interest in British politics, and pay
no attention to it, but just by osmosis I would have no trouble
recognizing the name of any person whose importance in British politics
were comparable to the importance of McCain in American politics.

Also when the name would be Heinz? Note that McCain is indeed a dominant
name in the food industry in the UK: <http://www.mccain.co.uk>.

So is Heinz. And both are also well-known names in USA politics; _and_,
something not many people appear to realise, the Heinzes in politics are
related to the ketchup (and some might say that the difference between
the two industries is slight anyway; both are distasteful and over-
paid). As for McCain, reports about his relation to the oven chips vary.

But let me try it: Howard

Hey, this was about the UK, not about has-been Ozzie racists.

or Cameron...

He won't be as important as McCain until there is an election. Which
there won't be until about four years from now.

C? I suppose Cain and Cameron both start with C. As does Corruption.

Richard

[Richard Heathfield]

Richard Bos said:

"Dik T. Winter" <Di********@cwi.nlwrote:

>In article <7y*****************@nwrddc01.gnilink.netJames Kuyper
<ja*********@verizon.netwrites:

<snip>

> I would have no trouble
recognizing the name of any person whose importance in British
politics were comparable to the importance of McCain in American
politics.

Also when the name would be Heinz? Note that McCain is indeed a
dominant name in the food industry in the UK: <http://www.mccain.co.uk>.

So is Heinz. And both are also well-known names in USA politics; _and_,
something not many people appear to realise, the Heinzes in politics are
related to the ketchup (and some might say that the difference between
the two industries is slight anyway; both are distasteful and over-
paid). As for McCain, reports about his relation to the oven chips vary.

>But let me try it: Howard

Hey, this was about the UK, not about has-been Ozzie racists.

Michael Howard was the leader of the UK-based Conservative and Unionist
Party ("the Tories") for a short while near the beginning of this
millennium. He has held a number of Cabinet posts, including that of Home
Secretary. He steered the "Poll Tax" legislation through Parliament,
(unwittingly) sowing the seeds for Margaret Thatcher's downfall.

--
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

[Dik T. Winter]

In article <0_******************************@bt.comrj*@see.sig.invalid writes:

Richard Bos said:

"Dik T. Winter" <Di********@cwi.nlwrote:

....

But let me try it: Howard

Hey, this was about the UK, not about has-been Ozzie racists.

Michael Howard was the leader of the UK-based Conservative and Unionist
Party ("the Tories") for a short while near the beginning of this
millennium. He has held a number of Cabinet posts, including that of Home
Secretary. He steered the "Poll Tax" legislation through Parliament,
(unwittingly) sowing the seeds for Margaret Thatcher's downfall.

And he lost the 2005 elections (although he won quite a few seats). Three
years later he appears to be nearly forgotten. Who will remember McCain
in three years?
--
dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, [phone]
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/

[Richard Heathfield]

Dik T. Winter said:

<snip>

Who will remember McCain in three years?

John West.

(Beat that for referential obscurity.)

--
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

[Barry Schwarz]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:47:35 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:

>Dik T. Winter said:

<snip>

>Who will remember McCain in three years?

John West.

(Beat that for referential obscurity.)

I see your referential obscurity and raise you a non sequitur.
Phenylpiruvic oligrophenia is a genetic metabolic disorder that is
frequently misdiagnosed as congenital aphasia. The resulting invalid
prognosis and mistreatment is often emotionally and financially
devastating for the parents. And you can bring this entire discussion
back on topic by nitpicking my spelling which is probably incorrect.

We can't stop the trolls from posting but what is this pathological
need to keep the thread alive and try to get the last word in.

--
Remove del for email

[Richard Heathfield]

Barry Schwarz said:

<snip>

We can't stop the trolls from posting but what is this pathological
need to keep the thread alive and try to get the last word in.

According to Chambers, it's "zymotic" (unless you count the blurb on the
back, in which case the last word is "them").

--
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

[Kenny McCormack]

In article <h0********************************@4ax.com>,
Barry Schwarz <sc******@dqel.comwrote:

>On Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:47:35 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<rj*@see.sig.invalidwrote:

>>Dik T. Winter said:

<snip>

>>Who will remember McCain in three years?

John West.

(Beat that for referential obscurity.)

I see your referential obscurity and raise you a non sequitur.
Phenylpiruvic oligrophenia is a genetic metabolic disorder that is
frequently misdiagnosed as congenital aphasia. The resulting invalid
prognosis and mistreatment is often emotionally and financially
devastating for the parents. And you can bring this entire discussion
back on topic by nitpicking my spelling which is probably incorrect.

We can't stop the trolls from posting but what is this pathological
need to keep the thread alive and try to get the last word in.

This is CLC. This is what we do. Get used to it.

[Nick Keighley]

On Oct 16, 6:57*pm, Flash Gordon <[e-mail]:

Nick Keighleywrote, On 16/10/08 07:57:

On 16 Oct, 00:33, Flash Gordon <[e-mail]:

[Knuth] might have written interesting books on Coral 66 as well,

I find it vanishingly unlikely that *anyone* could
write an interesting book on Coral 66. I suppose BITS
and TABLE were pretty cool. Oh, and UNION and DIFFER and MASK.
And CODE BEGIN!

Damn, someone else here has come across the language. I'll have to find
something more obscure... :-)

I did that from memory. And I know unfortunate souls who are
maintaining
programs written in it.
--
Nick Keighley

[Nick Keighley]

On 16 Oct, 18:31, Richard Heathfield <[e-mail]:

Nick Keighleysaid:

On 16 Oct, 10:07, Richard Heathfield <[e-mail]:

[...] it seems that few
of us (including me) have a copy of the finalised C89 Standard.

me! me! I've got one!

Good for you, but I've just noticed what I wrote. I meant to write "...MOST
of us (including me) DON'T have a copy...".

isn't that logically the same thing?

In case anyone cares, no, I don't have a finalised C90. I do have a rather
tattered draft that I got from Dan Pop's site (it's electronically
tattered - it seems to have a few holes).

it was aquired by rather an arcane route. We bought some obscure
hardware
that came with a C compiler but with no documentation for the compiler
(well, if memory serves me the documentaion was a couple of sides of
A4). So we asked for the documentaion. So they sent us a hardcopy
of the 1989 ANSI C Standard. A bargain I think.

--
Nick Keighley