C Standard Regarding Null Pointer Dereferencing

[spinoza1111]

Which, given who's saying it, I find quite flattering.

I guess that word, again, strengthens my point:  If those remarks really
aren't intended as offensive (and "claim" has the same sorts of connotations
of dishonesty that "invented" does), then that implies a level of familiarity
with English inconsistent with arguing with more fluent speakers when they
tell you that a given text is clear in its meaning.

-s

You kiss my ass
And I will kiss yours
Even if we're ignorant
Even if we're bores
This is an echo chamber
Far below the deep blue sea
We reinforce each others' ignorance
I love you and you love me.

 

[Seebs]

Hey, Seebs, your stalker is back.

I think on principle I appreciate being alerted, but this does raise
a (sometimes C-related) question:

Is there any point to testing for an error condition without some idea
in mind of what you'd do about it if it occurred?

-s

 

[Keith Thompson]

Seebs wrote:


#include <stdio.h>

void report_error(const char *s)
{
if(fprintf(stderr, "%s\n", s) < 0)
{
report_error("Can't write to stderr");
}
}

Clever trick. If you can't write to stderr, a stack overflow is
likely to cause the OS to do something that will catch the user's
attention.

On the other hand, if the compiler optimizes tail-recursion ...

Hey, if writing to stderr fails, you could try writing to stdin;
the user is bound to notice when error messages start coming out
of the keyboard.

 

[blmblm]

Yes, of course, and there's nothing the writer can do about that.

I would be inclined, in this situation, to try to explicitly defuse
the negative connotations of "claims" -- something like "he claims
to be an expert, and he may very well be one -- I don't know enough
to judge". ?

That's
why we have to be careful how we write, if we do not wish to be
misunderstood. (That applies to everyone, in all contexts, not just in
comp.lang.c, and it applies as much to me as it does to you or to anyone
else.)

I would not -- I would take the approach described above. But this
sort-of-advice should probably be taken with a big block of salt,
because it does make for a rather wordy and pedantic style, maybe,
and while that's pretty appropriate for me, maybe not so much for
the OP.

Status is as status does. People acquire "status" (if that's the right
word) in comp.lang.c by posting good, sound advice, by entering civilly
into technical discussions and demonstrating their knowledge of C in
those discussions.

[ snip ]

By reading the group regularly, as I say, you get to know who are the
people who actually know the language. As for how to deal with such
people, you could do worse than check out articles by "blmblm" (B L
Massingill, I think), who - although far from ignorant about C - would
perhaps not lay claim to deep expertise, but whose articles are
invariably polite and well-argued.

Good heavens. Thanks for the kind words! (That's mostly why
I'm replying here, and I *almost* didn't notice this post, since
I don't even try to read everything in this group. I'm apt to
become curious, though, when a thread seems to be generating more
posts than one might expect from the subject line.)

And yes, "not ignorant, but not laying claim to deep expertise" is
pretty close to how I'd describe my knowledge of C.

The OP might however want to avoid my tendency to drift off-topic.
Just sayin'. ?

You can't, I suppose. But what you /can/ do is learn.

Agreed -- but really, it kind of surprises me that someone who
seems entirely fluent in English would not know that both of
these words can have negative connotations. But there may be
some obvious explanation for that, one that's not occurring to me.

(Keeping a lot of quoted text here because it does seem relevant.)

It ain't so much the words as the way how you use them. It comes with
experience.


Nope. No point in rebutting a non-existent statement.



It isn't so much a word-list as an exercise in objectivity. It can be
quite difficult to stand back from the text you write and see it as
others will see it. But it is a worthwhile exercise, nonetheless.


--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within

Quoting the signature too to comment that I do like the dmr quote!

 

[Shao Miller]

I would be inclined, in this situation, to try to explicitly defuse
the negative connotations of "claims" -- something like "he claims
to be an expert, and he may very well be one -- I don't know enough
to judge".  ?

If a person receives an electric shock every time one reads "claims,"
that is sufficient reason to avoid using it around such a person.
Other such reasons and words are possible, and none of my business to
argue about, but to try to respect, instead.

An "insider's" perspective on the use of "claims to have" versus "has"
might very well perceive a negative connotation. I did not, and thus
didn't intend it. Consider an "outsider's" perspective which might
simply use "claims" as part of describing a logical reasoning
process. Statements can make a claim, sound or unsound. To use "has"
instead of "claims to have" is illogical. Deeming a statement as a
claim does not imply the claim is false (negative connotations). I
cannot help that three people perceive a negative connotation. This
paragraph can try and succeed, or try and fail.

I would not -- I would take the approach described above.  But this
sort-of-advice should probably be taken with a big block of salt,
because it does make for a rather wordy and pedantic style, maybe,
and while that's pretty appropriate for me, maybe not so much for
the OP.

Agreed on "wordy and pedantic style." Styles can be adapted, also.
Let's call it what it is, though: Being especially sensitive to a list
of trigger words with possible emotional associations for readers. I
have failed to demonstrate such sensitivity, which warrants an
apology. I'm sorry. Perhaps we have cultural differences. Please
forgive and be tolerant. There is no objective implication of dispute
using "claims to have," so one cannot guarantee "loading" of a "word-
weapon" and ill intent.

... ... ...
The OP might however want to avoid my tendency to drift off-topic.
Just sayin'.  ?

It's difficult to avoid being drawn into personal back-and-forth,
despite determination.

Agreed -- but really, it kind of surprises me that someone who
seems entirely fluent in English would not know that both of
these words can have negative connotations.  But there may be
some obvious explanation for that, one that's not occurring to me.

This implies that fluency in English is sufficient cause for awareness
of negative connotations for these words. Connotations are cultural
and not universal to a language. That is the cause for your surprise.

I daresay that connotations are also fuzzy without context. There was
no personal attack happening, so use of "claims to have" need not
carry a negative connotation. It is understandable that someone
perceiving a personal attack might also perceive a negative
connotation. So in general: stop perceiving personal attacks where
there are none. A history of personal attacks in Usenet might make
this challenging.

I took part of Richard's advice the day of his kind words and read a
good number of your posts. Thanks, B.

 

[blmblm]

If a person receives an electric shock every time one reads "claims,"
that is sufficient reason to avoid using it around such a person.
Other such reasons and words are possible, and none of my business to
argue about, but to try to respect, instead.

An "insider's" perspective on the use of "claims to have" versus "has"
might very well perceive a negative connotation. I did not, and thus
didn't intend it. Consider an "outsider's" perspective which might
simply use "claims" as part of describing a logical reasoning
process. Statements can make a claim, sound or unsound. To use "has"
instead of "claims to have" is illogical. Deeming a statement as a
claim does not imply the claim is false (negative connotations). I
cannot help that three people perceive a negative connotation. This
paragraph can try and succeed, or try and fail.

(I'm going to continue this off-topic discussion just a bit more,
with the excuse that maybe by doing so I'll reduce the odds of similar
kerfuffles in the future .... )

Sure, I understood why you said "claims to have" rather than "has" --
I do that myself when I don't really have any basis for knowing
about the truth of the claim. But I'm aware that for some people
"claims to have" is not just a statement of fact, but one that casts
doubt on the claim. So I try to make it clear that I'm not trying
to be insulting. People [*] aren't always logical!

[*] There could be exceptions. I'm not sure I've ever met one,
but with, what, over 6 billion people on the planet, who can say ...

Agreed on "wordy and pedantic style."

Careful, there, who are you calling "wordy and pedantic" ....

Oh, maybe no one. (And even if you were, it would be true of me,
though a "smile when you say that, pardner" [*] would be in order.)

[*] Possibly US-centric cultural reference to -- some movie from
long ago, I think. The point is that it's easier to be laughed
*with* than laughed *at*. If that doesn't make sense say so and
I'll try to clarify.

Styles can be adapted, also.
Let's call it what it is, though: Being especially sensitive to a list
of trigger words with possible emotional associations for readers. I
have failed to demonstrate such sensitivity, which warrants an
apology. I'm sorry. Perhaps we have cultural differences. Please
forgive and be tolerant. There is no objective implication of dispute
using "claims to have," so one cannot guarantee "loading" of a "word-
weapon" and ill intent.

"Cultural differences" is a possibility. I'm writing from the
US, which is where I grew up and currently reside. I don't think
I'm much more provincial and US-centric than most people in this
country, but admittedly that's a low bar.

To me you're coming across as someone who considers only the logical
meaning of words and not their potential emotional impact on readers.
I suspect that this puts you in a small minority, though I could be
wrong about that. I also suspect that "logical meaning only" people
are apt to be more readily found in technical fields than elsewhere.

It's difficult to avoid being drawn into personal back-and-forth,
despite determination.

Isn't it, though.

[ snip ]

This implies that fluency in English is sufficient cause for awareness
of negative connotations for these words. Connotations are cultural
and not universal to a language. That is the cause for your surprise.

Fair enough. (I did think it might be something along those lines
but couldn't think how to express that thought politely enough.)

I daresay that connotations are also fuzzy without context. There was
no personal attack happening, so use of "claims to have" need not
carry a negative connotation. It is understandable that someone
perceiving a personal attack might also perceive a negative
connotation. So in general: stop perceiving personal attacks where
there are none. A history of personal attacks in Usenet might make
this challenging.

I took part of Richard's advice the day of his kind words and read a
good number of your posts. Thanks, B.

If I've helped -- happy to do so. You may have observed that on
some occasions (not in this discussion, but in others) I can be
too quick to take offense where none was intended. It's one of
the hazards of a text-only medium, I think!

Indeed, this discussion is another example ....

 

[Seebs]

To me you're coming across as someone who considers only the logical
meaning of words and not their potential emotional impact on readers.
I suspect that this puts you in a small minority, though I could be
wrong about that. I also suspect that "logical meaning only" people
are apt to be more readily found in technical fields than elsewhere.

This is not implausible. Ironically, it took me years of study to
start picking up connotations.

Fair enough. (I did think it might be something along those lines
but couldn't think how to express that thought politely enough.)

While it's true that connotations are often cultural, I am not aware
of any culture in which accusing someone of having invented something
when they cite to a text as showing it does not constitute an
accusation of dishonesty. I have spoken with English-speakers from
many countries, and in this case, the connotation is not so much
cultural as a question of Gricean maxims.

-s

 

[Shao Miller]

(I'm going to continue this off-topic discussion just a bit more,
with the excuse that maybe by doing so I'll reduce the odds of similar
kerfuffles in the future .... )

By all means, that's a worthy cause.

Sure, I understood why you said "claims to have" rather than "has" --
I do that myself when I don't really have any basis for knowing
about the truth of the claim.  But I'm aware that for some people
"claims to have" is not just a statement of fact, but one that casts
doubt on the claim.  So I try to make it clear that I'm not trying
to be insulting.  People [*] aren't always logical!  

[*] There could be exceptions.  I'm not sure I've ever met one,
but with, what, over 6 billion people on the planet, who can say ...

I agree. I believe that people associating a claim of a claim with a
dispute for the latter claim will find their doubt-casting. That can
be reconditioned just as avoidance of "bad words" can be
reconditioned.

Agreed on "wordy and pedantic style."  

Careful, there, who are you calling "wordy and pedantic" ....  

Oh, maybe no one.  (And even if you were, it would be true of me,
though a "smile when you say that, pardner" [*] would be in order.)

"Wordy and pedantic style" applies to _my_ posts _already_. It
will _continue_ to apply as more emotional lighteners and/or
neutralizers are sprinkled in.

"...who are you calling..." is another example of a perceived
attack. :S I have already requested that in general: stop perceiving
personal attacks where
there are none; even though a history of personal attacks in Usenet
might make this challenging. :S

[*] Possibly US-centric cultural reference to -- some movie from
long ago, I think.  The point is that it's easier to be laughed
*with* than laughed *at*.  If that doesn't make sense say so and
I'll try to clarify.

That cultural reference is familiar to me, outside of the U. S. A.
Agreed that the reference comes from that culture.

Nobody should be laughing when the subject is people's feelings being
hurt, in my opinion. It's a very serious matter. That is why there
aren't any smile tokens in that post. A smile token might encourage
laughter.

"Cultural differences" is a possibility.  I'm writing from the
US, which is where I grew up and currently reside.  I don't think
I'm much more provincial and US-centric than most people in this
country, but admittedly that's a low bar.

To me you're coming across as someone who considers only the logical
meaning of words and not their potential emotional impact on readers.
I suspect that this puts you in a small minority, though I could be
wrong about that.  I also suspect that "logical meaning only" people
are apt to be more readily found in technical fields than elsewhere.

Agreed on "more readily found." And here is a clue as to why
attention to readers' emotional needs was not anticipated as requiring
more care than I am used to.

It's difficult to avoid being drawn into personal back-and-forth,
despite determination.

Isn't it, though.

[ snip ]

This implies that fluency in English is sufficient cause for awareness
of negative connotations for these words.  Connotations are cultural
and not universal to a language.  That is the cause for your surprise..

Fair enough.  (I did think it might be something along those lines
but couldn't think how to express that thought politely enough.)

Thanks for being polite.

If I've helped -- happy to do so.  You may have observed that on
some occasions (not in this discussion, but in others) I can be
too quick to take offense where none was intended.  It's one of
the hazards of a text-only medium, I think!

It is.

Indeed, this discussion is another example ....

It is.

 

[Shao Miller]

This is not implausible.  Ironically, it took me years of study to
start picking up connotations.

Thank for your acknowledging that fluency in English is not sufficient
cause for awareness of the negative connotations you perceive. I
agree.

While it's true that connotations are often cultural, I am not aware
of any culture in which accusing someone of having invented something
when they cite to a text as showing it does not constitute an
accusation of dishonesty.  I have spoken with English-speakers from
many countries, and in this case, the connotation is not so much
cultural as a question of Gricean maxims.

It's not an accusation. It's a claim that there is no supporting
reference to the text given. You can demonstrate otherwise. You can
choose to ignore (ie. "plonk"). Your knowledge that there _is_ text
to support your statements is not accessible to me. If you do not
include the references, the knowledge cannot be accessed. The
original post includes a great number of references. That was my
expectation for responses. That was my mistake. "Highest levels of
pedantry" was a mistake to request.

These are my claims. I offer no external references for them. Thus,
they are also my inventions.

 

[Tim Rentsch]

Shao Miller <[email protected]> writes:

int main(void) {
static int foo = 15;
struct bar {
char c[(size_t)&foo];
int baz;
};
return (*(struct foo *)0).baz;
}

That's a constraint violation. If your compiler does not complain about
it get another one! The array size must be an integer constant
expression.

Actually it is not a constraint violation but it certainly violates a
"shall" about integer constant expressions (6.6 p6). I am surprised
this is not a CV since I can't see any reason it can't be checked at
compile time, but it's not one.

My impression is that such things are deliberate omissions,
so that implemenations may accept them as "other forms of
constant expressions" under 6.6p10 without having to issue
a diagnostic.

 

[Tim Rentsch]

Ben Bacarisse wrote:

For example, I'd bet that the popular consensus amongst C programmers is
that

int two_d_array[10][10];
two_d_array[0][20] = 42;

is well-defined, but it's hard to find well-reasoned arguments from C
experts to support that view.

This is of course a well-chewed-over chestnut. My own view is that the
behaviour of the code is theoretically undefined, *but* you'd be
hard-pressed to find an implementation that did anything particularly
surprising with it.

The reason I consider it to be undefined (which I'm sure I could make
rigorous with references to the Standard, if only it weren't 3am) is
as follows:

int two_d_array[10][10] has local scope (it must do, because the
immediately following line is a statement, not a declaration, and
statements at file scope are not allowed, so we must be inside a
function). We can therefore unequivocally state that it is a
definition (as opposed to a mere declaration). This isn't particularly
relevant to the argument, but it does at least forestall arguments
about terminology!

We can therefore say quite categorically that it *defines* an array of
10 objects, each of which is an array. Each of these "sub-arrays" is
an object in its own right, an array 10 elements wide.

two_d_array[0], therefore, describes an array of 10
ints. two_d_array[0][20] describes the 21st element in that
array. Since the array has only ten elements, we have a problem.

We know that A is equivalent to *(A + I). We know that we can
legitimately form a pointer into any part of an object, *or* one past
the end of an object. If we go further than that, we invoke UB. But
two_d_array[0][20] is equivalent to *(two_d_array[0] + 20), which is 9
past the end of the two_d_array[0] object - i.e. way more than one
past the end. So the behaviour is quite definitely undefined.

Open and shut case, as they say.

BUT... we have to re-open the case on appeal, because we know that
arrays are stored contiguously. We know that the two_d_array object is
100 ints wide, and we know that two_d_array[0][20] is equivalent to
*(two_d_array[0] + 20), which is equivalent to *(*(two_d_array + 0) +
20), which is obviously well within the bounds of two_d_array.

So whether the behaviour is defined or undefined actually depends on
which object the implementation thinks you're pointing into.

The problem is that the Standard should define unambiguously what
that object is in each of the various different circumstances;
unfortunately, it doesn't.

In practice, implementations are not going to add code to play
bounds-cop on you when you are clearly well within program-owned
memory. My own view, therefore, is that the behaviour is undefined in
theory but well-defined in practice. [snip]

I mostly agree, but intra-function or intra-translation-unit
alias analysis is an important exception. These cases may
very well manifest unde{sir,fin}ed behavior upon such usage.

 

[Tim Rentsch]

Just a summary of some of the valuable discussion from respondants.
[snip]

Tim Rentsch: { [snip]

was misquoted/misinterpreted. Interested parties should
refer to the original postings.

 

[Shao Miller]

Just a summary of some of the valuable discussion from respondants.
[snip]

Tim Rentsch: {  [snip]

was misquoted/misinterpreted.  Interested parties should
refer to the original postings.

Those aren't quotations, by any means. They are a summary of valuable
points that were brought up.

If I misinterpreted, I apologize. Sorry, Tim!

 

[spinoza1111]

On Jul 25, 3:29=A0am, Seebs <[email protected]> wrote:

[snip Seebishism]
[Snip Vogon Poetry]

Hey, Seebs, your stalker is back.

I'm not a stalker. Seebach unleashed a cybernetic mob on Herb Schildt
a number of years ago in order to advance himself in a career for
which Seebach is just not qualified, and I examined Seebach's attack
to find it to be garbage. My article about this matter was accepted
for publication in the competently moderated and prestigious group
comp.risks. The moderator was then spammed by the sort of cybernetic
mob Seebach had marshaled against Schildt and printed an apology for
accepting my article, but then accepted a second article on an
unrelated topic (the California payroll system crisis).

The sort of half-literate creeps and stalkers indeed who dominate this
newsgroup aren't typically accepted for publication in decent circles,
although Richard Heathfield, Seebach et al. were accepted by Sams, a
rather Low Rent computer publisher that mistreats authors. This
triggers their destructive rage.

I've pretty much stopped programming at this time since I'm in a much
more humane profession and am also developing a painting online, and
documenting it at http://spinoza1111.wordpress.com. But I may return
at any time if some issue catches my interest.

You're all stalkers. Your programming craftsmanship is nil except in a
few cases such as Navia and Bacarisse, and even the latter is being
corrupted by the fact that it's a myth that corporations need
"excellent programmers". A corporation, as the BP oil spill makes
clear, exists solely to make money and to use your negative
capabilities (fear and hatred) to do so.

You sit in front of your work stations
Pretending to work for corporations
That pretend to give a **** about you
And hatred you spew against all that is true
Like petroleum at the bottom of the sea.

 

[spinoza1111]

I think on principle I appreciate being alerted, but this does raise
a (sometimes C-related) question:

Is there any point to testing for an error condition without some idea
in mind of what you'd do about it if it occurred?

I'd say, yes. I'd say that you better get an idea of what to do. You
can always terminate, can't you, in almost all environments? Of
course, my experience since 1971 is that incompetent programmers, as a
rule, ignore errors, and that in many nasty little data processing
shops, finding errors in a way that is not pre-approved can be a
"termination" offense, since it deconstructs the idea that the work
group knows what it is doing.

[Of course, unless Peter has got religion, he will talk to someone
else about me in a critical way rather than answer my post. This is
directed at others here for their comments for that reason.]

 

[spinoza1111]

Seebs wrote:

<snip>





#include <stdio.h>

void report_error(const char *s)
{
   if(fprintf(stderr, "%s\n", s) < 0)
   {
     report_error("Can't write to stderr");
   }

}

That's a beaut, Dickie. Go into an infinite loop when you cannot write
to stderr?

Perhaps you jest.

 

[spinoza1111]

Clever trick.  If you can't write to stderr, a stack overflow is
likely to cause the OS to do something that will catch the user's
attention.

Duh! I was wrong. Keith is right. You will blow the stack.

But there was nothing clever about the code. Get a clue!

On the other hand, if the compiler optimizes tail-recursion ...

....infinite loop after all?

 

[spinoza1111]

If a person receives an electric shock every time one reads "claims,"
that is sufficient reason to avoid using it around such a person.
Other such reasons and words are possible, and none of my business to
argue about, but to try to respect, instead.

An "insider's" perspective on the use of "claims to have" versus "has"
might very well perceive a negative connotation.  I did not, and thus
didn't intend it.  Consider an "outsider's" perspective which might
simply use "claims" as part of describing a logical reasoning
process.  Statements can make a claim, sound or unsound.  To use "has"
instead of "claims to have" is illogical.  Deeming a statement as a
claim does not imply the claim is false (negative connotations).  I
cannot help that three people perceive a negative connotation.  This
paragraph can try and succeed, or try and fail.

(I'm going to continue this off-topic discussion just a bit more,
with the excuse that maybe by doing so I'll reduce the odds of similar
kerfuffles in the future .... )

Sure, I understood why you said "claims to have" rather than "has" --
I do that myself when I don't really have any basis for knowing
about the truth of the claim.  But I'm aware that for some people
"claims to have" is not just a statement of fact, but one that casts
doubt on the claim.  So I try to make it clear that I'm not trying
to be insulting.  People [*] aren't always logical!  

[*] There could be exceptions.  I'm not sure I've ever met one,
but with, what, over 6 billion people on the planet, who can say ...

Agreed on "wordy and pedantic style."  

Careful, there, who are you calling "wordy and pedantic" ....  

Oh, maybe no one.  (And even if you were, it would be true of me,
though a "smile when you say that, pardner" [*] would be in order.)

[*] Possibly US-centric cultural reference to -- some movie from
long ago, I think.  The point is that it's easier to be laughed
*with* than laughed *at*.  If that doesn't make sense say so and
I'll try to clarify.

Styles can be adapted, also.
Let's call it what it is, though: Being especially sensitive to a list
of trigger words with possible emotional associations for readers.  I
have failed to demonstrate such sensitivity, which warrants an
apology.  I'm sorry.  Perhaps we have cultural differences.  Please
forgive and be tolerant.  There is no objective implication of dispute
using "claims to have," so one cannot guarantee "loading" of a "word-
weapon" and ill intent.

"Cultural differences" is a possibility.  I'm writing from the
US, which is where I grew up and currently reside.  I don't think
I'm much more provincial and US-centric than most people in this
country, but admittedly that's a low bar.

To me you're coming across as someone who considers only the logical
meaning of words and not their potential emotional impact on readers.
I suspect that this puts you in a small minority, though I could be
wrong about that.  I also suspect that "logical meaning only" people
are apt to be more readily found in technical fields than elsewhere.

Actually, it is quite US centric of you to use ugly phrases such as
"you are coming across as", which imply that the group knows the
person better than he knows himself. It's a way of criticising a
person, and evading the matter he raises which is overused in
corporations in the US.

It's a lazy way of justifying sloppy thinking and self-centered
hermeneutics, at worse.

I see you are still quite the female enabler of male bullying. You
pour honey on people merely to attract the fire ants.

That's a metaphor, my dear. I teach English.

It's difficult to avoid being drawn into personal back-and-forth,
despite determination.

Isn't it, though.

[ snip ]

This implies that fluency in English is sufficient cause for awareness
of negative connotations for these words.  Connotations are cultural
and not universal to a language.  That is the cause for your surprise..

Fair enough.  (I did think it might be something along those lines
but couldn't think how to express that thought politely enough.)

I daresay that connotations are also fuzzy without context.  There was
no personal attack happening, so use of "claims to have" need not
carry a negative connotation.  It is understandable that someone
perceiving a personal attack might also perceive a negative
connotation.  So in general: stop perceiving personal attacks where
there are none.  A history of personal attacks in Usenet might make
this challenging.

I took part of Richard's advice the day of his kind words and read a
good number of your posts.  Thanks, B.

If I've helped -- happy to do so.  You may have observed that on
some occasions (not in this discussion, but in others) I can be
too quick to take offense where none was intended.  It's one of
the hazards of a text-only medium, I think!

Indeed, this discussion is another example ....

 

[John Kelly]

On Jul 29, 9:16 pm, (e-mail address removed) (Richard Harter) wrote:

I'm not a stalker. Seebach unleashed a cybernetic mob on Herb Schildt
a number of years ago in order to advance himself in a career for
which Seebach is just not qualified, and I examined Seebach's attack
to find it to be garbage.

Speaking of stalkers, most any time I mention the daemon helper, in any
newsgroup, Seebs shows up to attack it. I wonder if he has a search bot
looking for those keywords. Why he cares, seems strange to me.

 

[Seebs]

Speaking of stalkers, most any time I mention the daemon helper, in any
newsgroup, Seebs shows up to attack it. I wonder if he has a search bot
looking for those keywords. Why he cares, seems strange to me.

You happen to have posted about it in two groups that I participate in,
and in one of them it's off-topic; in the other it's merely a badly-done
reimplementation of things that have been better done before by people
who were more willing to cooperate with established standards and file
formats.

I don't think I've posted to any of the other groups you've spammed
about it in, where it was entirely off-topic.

-s