Convert an ip address to long value

[Flash Gordon]

I could, but this would require me to understand CLC.

It only requires that you understand that assembler is not C and
comp.lang.c is about C.

 

[Robert Redelmeier]

It only requires that you understand that assembler is not
C and comp.lang.c is about C.

I already understand this, but my forming an opinion of
trollishness requires considerably more. In particular,
I had no idea that assembly was that anathma to CLC.
There's lots of `c` in ALA.

-- Robert

 

[Keith Thompson]

I already understand this, but my forming an opinion of
trollishness requires considerably more. In particular,
I had no idea that assembly was that anathma to CLC.
There's lots of `c` in ALA.

I wouldn't use the word "anathema", but it's certainly considered
off-topic. comp.lang.c is stricter about topicality than most
newsgroups. We try very hard to stick to the C language as defined by
the ISO standards (or by earlier documents, such as K&R1, in
historical discussions).

As for RoSsIaCrIiLoIA's trollishness or lack thereof, by all means
feel free to form your own opinion in any way you like.

If you're interested in learning more about comp.lang.c,
<http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/Introduction_to_comp.lang.c> is a good
introduction. (The comp.lang.c FAQ, <http://www.c-faq.com/>, mostly
covers the language, not the dynamics of the newsgroup.)

If you're *not* interested in learning more about comp.lang.c, that's
perfectly fine. But if you're not going to discuss either the C
language or the comp.lang.c newsgroup (meta-discussions are generally
considered topical), please consider dropping comp.lang.c from the
Newsgroups header. (I'm not tell you to go away, just offering some
insight on the group.)

 

[Vladimir Oka]

Robert Redelmeier opined:

What do you consider a troll?

I think others have explained this probably better than I would.

I'll only add that I failed to notice alt.lang.asm in the header. Had I
noticed it, I might have qualified my statement.

--
There are no threads in a.b.p.erotica, so there's no gain in using a
threaded news reader.
(Unknown source)

<http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/Introduction_to_comp.lang.c>

 

[Robert Redelmeier]

I wouldn't use the word "anathema", but it's certainly considered
off-topic. comp.lang.c is stricter about topicality than
most newsgroups. We try very hard to stick to the C language
as defined by the ISO standards (or by earlier documents,
such as K&R1, in historical discussions).

A discussion of only what is, rather than what could or should
be in `c` sounds like a elaborate RTFM! And if you're going
to discuss potential features, then why forbid mention of
languages that incorporate those features? You'd be hobbling
debate in favor of the status-quo.

Speaking of strictness, AFAIK many c's allow inline asm.
So asm is included in `c`?

But if you're not going to discuss either the C language or
the comp.lang.c newsgroup (meta-discussions are generally
considered topical), please consider dropping comp.lang.c
from the Newsgroups header. (I'm not tell you to go away,
just offering some insight on the group.)

This brings up a more general issue: How should one deal with
posts that are on-topic for one of the cross-posted groups, but
potentially abusive of others? It isn't always easy to tell.
Know all the groups? Do you know ALA?

Replying only to one group is rude since it likely will miss
the OP. Setting Follow-Ups is possible (if respected at all),
but that forks discussion and people may never see posts they
would otherwise find interesting.

False-positives are a big concern of mine: I'd rather deal with
100-1000 junk posts/emails than miss a single interesting one.
Of course, other people will set their own S/N tolerance.
Quite possibly higher. But I will not subject myself to
"prior-restraint" or participate in a race-to-politeness.

-- Robert

 

[Keith Thompson]

A discussion of only what is, rather than what could or should
be in `c` sounds like a elaborate RTFM!

Standard C is big enough to provide more than enough traffic for this
newsgroup. For example, we get a lot of discussions of the form,
"Here's my C code that's supposed to do such-and-such, but it does
this instead; what's the problem?"

And if you're going
to discuss potential features, then why forbid mention of
languages that incorporate those features? You'd be hobbling
debate in favor of the status-quo.

The status quo is what we discuss. There's a separate newsgroup,
comp.std.c, for discussing the C standard document (as opposed to the
language defined by that document), including proposals for changes in
future versions.

Speaking of strictness, AFAIK many c's allow inline asm.
So asm is included in `c`?

No, it's an extension. The C standard allows implementations to
provide extensions (as long as they don't break any strictly
conforming code); the details of any such extensions can be discussed
in a system-specific or compiler-specific newsgroup.

This brings up a more general issue: How should one deal with
posts that are on-topic for one of the cross-posted groups, but
potentially abusive of others? It isn't always easy to tell.
Know all the groups? Do you know ALA?

No, I'm not familiar with alt.lang.asm; I'm not sure if my news server
even carries it (and I haven't written assembly language in many
years).

The original cross-post was almost certainly inappropriate. Someone
posting to comp.lang.c and alt.lang.asm should be familiar with both
groups, and hardly anything can be topical in both. Possibly someone
could be looking for a solution either in C or in assembly language;
in that case, the poster should ask people to post followups only to
the appropriate newsgroup.

Replying only to one group is rude since it likely will miss
the OP. Setting Follow-Ups is possible (if respected at all),
but that forks discussion and people may never see posts they
would otherwise find interesting.

The OP should be following both newsgroups.

False-positives are a big concern of mine: I'd rather deal with
100-1000 junk posts/emails than miss a single interesting one.
Of course, other people will set their own S/N tolerance.
Quite possibly higher. But I will not subject myself to
"prior-restraint" or participate in a race-to-politeness.

Your tolerance for junk is *much* higher than mine.