M
Malcolm
That's inevitable. The convoy travels at the speed of the slowest ship.jacob navia said:
J
jacob navia
Malcolm a écrit :
Please think a bit Malcom.
To know the argument for a function without prototypes the compiler
should have the source code for all functions, including those in the
libraries the program is using. This would imply that the source code
for all the system would have to be processed, loaded into memory,
before any checks could be done.
This is completely impossible, so *some* type of prototype declaration
is needed. In Pascal you have the 'interface' declarations, in C# you
have a similar construct... etc!
Please think a bit Malcom.
To know the argument for a function without prototypes the compiler
should have the source code for all functions, including those in the
libraries the program is using. This would imply that the source code
for all the system would have to be processed, loaded into memory,
before any checks could be done.
This is completely impossible, so *some* type of prototype declaration
is needed. In Pascal you have the 'interface' declarations, in C# you
have a similar construct... etc!
A
Andrew Poelstra
Not to mention the fact that maintenance programmers want a prototype
to give them some idea of how a function works!
M
Malcolm
The library should contain information about the signature of the functionsjacob navia said:
it contains.
The problem might be the weight of libraries without this feature, and no
way of retrieving information from them.
R
Richard Heathfield
Malcolm said:
No, Richard Heathfield didn't write any of the stuff quoted in your article.
No, Richard Heathfield didn't write any of the stuff quoted in your article.
M
Malcolm
Think of the attribution lines as prototypes.Richard Heathfield said:
Initially I included the bit about implicit int, but then I realised that
jacob navia hadn't
mentioned that point, so I snipped it. But I forgot to update the
attributions.
That's the problem when you have information in two places at once.
D
Default User
Richard said:
You going to sue him?
Brian
R
Richard Heathfield
Default User said:
I wasn't planning on it, no. I don't consider litigation to be the best way
to settle Usenet disagreements.
But having said that... with a name like Malcolm, he's probably Scottish -
so maybe I'll make an exception in his case.
I wasn't planning on it, no. I don't consider litigation to be the best way
to settle Usenet disagreements.
But having said that... with a name like Malcolm, he's probably Scottish -
so maybe I'll make an exception in his case.
G
Gordon Burditt
This is a perfect example of why attribution = misattribution,
and I didn't have anything to do with prior articles in this thread.
Also, this is off-topic for comp.lang.c. Is there a alt.flame.attributions?
Gordon L. Burditt
F
Flash Gordon
Gordon said:
It was a simple case of forgetting to do a final snip after deleting the
last piece of Richard's text. It did not lead to major disputes the way
you claim.
--
Flash Gordon, living in interesting times.
Web site - http://home.flash-gordon.me.uk/
comp.lang.c posting guidelines and intro:
http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/Intro_to_clc
Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
C
CBFalconer
Gordon said:
If you look back at the original (long gone from here), you will
find their is no material preceded by n+1 '>'s, where n is the
number of '>'s preceding the Heathfield attribution. The system is
self correcting, and has sufficient redundancy to detect careless
snipping, as above.
Proper netiquette is always topical. Think correcting children.
--
Some informative links:
http://www.geocities.com/nnqweb/
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
J
Jordan Abel
The problem is that your solution [snip all attributions] is worse than
the problem. You should ONLY snip attributions that don't apply to
quoted text.
K
Keith Thompson
Somebody made the minor mistake of failing to snip a single
attribution line after having snipped all the corresponding text.
Richard pointed it out, and the whole thing was resolved without
threats or lawsuits.
You, on the other hand, repeatedly, consistently, and *deliberately*
make the far worse mistake of snipping all attributions, making
discussions more difficult to follow for everyone. I don't quite
agree with CBFalconer's statement in another thread that this is
plagiarism, but it is extremely rude.
Stop snipping attributions.
C
CBFalconer
Keith said:
I said it "was tantamount to plagiarism". Several nits there.
--
Some informative links:
http://www.geocities.com/nnqweb/
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
R
Richard Heathfield
[Attributions have received a shave and a haircut.]
Gordon Burditt said:
No, it's a perfect example of why misattribution = misattribution.
Gordon Burditt said:
No, it's a perfect example of why misattribution = misattribution.
K
Keith Thompson
CBFalconer said:
You also wrote:
| As I pointed out, quoting without attribution is effectively
| plagiarism. Every newsreader of which I am aware will construct the
| attribution lines automatically. There is no need to steal the
| words of others.
which is a stronger claim than "tantamount to plagiarism".
If he were posting others' remarks without marking them as quotations,
making them appear to be his own words, that would be plagiarism. In
my humble opinion, what he's actually doing is merely rude; there's no
appearance that other poster's words are actually his.
But I acknowedge that you didn't say that it actually *is* plagiarism,
and I don't think it's that important a point anyway. Plagiarism is a
legal term, and nobody is seriously threatening legal action. We're
both in complete agreement that he needs to stop snipping attributions
and/or give us a decent explanation (which he has so far failed to
do).