emacs, linux and C

[Richard G. Riley]

I am looking for a way to integrate the C library documentation into
emacs' C mode. Adding any linux library documentation would be a
bonus.

e.g hilite word, hotkey to library documentation.

thanks for any help.

 

[Ben Pfaff]

I am looking for a way to integrate the C library documentation into
emacs' C mode. Adding any linux library documentation would be a
bonus.

You'd be better off asking about this in an Emacs newsgroup.

 

[Keith Thompson]

I am looking for a way to integrate the C library documentation into
emacs' C mode. Adding any linux library documentation would be a
bonus.

e.g hilite word, hotkey to library documentation.

That's not really a C question. Try gnu.emacs.

 

[Richard G. Riley]

That's not really a C question. Try gnu.emacs.

I will, thanks. This being a C programmers group though I didnt think it was
too OT.

 

[CBFalconer]

I will, thanks. This being a C programmers group though I didnt
think it was too OT.

In that case it is obvious you have not lurked for long enough.

--
Some useful references about C:
<http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt>
<http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html>
<http://benpfaff.org/writings/clc/off-topic.html>
<http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n869/> (C99)
<http://www.dinkumware.com/refxc.html> (C-library}
<http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/> (GNU docs)
<http://clc-wiki.net> (C-info)

 

[Richard G. Riley]

In that case it is obvious you have not lurked for long enough.

Without wanting to continue this too long, why would it be incorrect
to ask seasoned programmers such a question? Programmers who,
presumably, use some sort of IDE/Editor combo to support the C
language development. Google didn't help me, and I considered that
some clever sdo here might have implemented something.

 

[CBFalconer]

Without wanting to continue this too long, why would it be incorrect
to ask seasoned programmers such a question? Programmers who,
presumably, use some sort of IDE/Editor combo to support the C
language development. Google didn't help me, and I considered that
some clever sdo here might have implemented something.

Because this is the wrong place. The subject is the language, not
the various systems and implementations. The simple act of lurking
should have made that apparent, and also have suggested several
possible suitable newsgroups.

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>

 

[Richard G. Riley]

Because this is the wrong place. The subject is the language, not
the various systems and implementations. The simple act of lurking
should have made that apparent, and also have suggested several
possible suitable newsgroups.

Since I asked about supporting the language it is hardly the end of
the world. Now, since you were not able or not willing to help I
really dont know why you bother lecturing. You may or may not realise
this but this is a PROGRAMMING group dedicated to the C language and I
asked about a programming utility for the C langauge. Since I was
specifically asking about C bindings for emacs then here he is valid
as .emacs. Or would your brother in .emacs tell me to come here since
emacs is, in fact, built in lispp?

As for your comment about implementation this is clearly wrong since
many questions cover the various standards and implementations as
related to how the language is.

Sheesh. Save your energy for helping someone.

 

[August Karlstrom]

Richard G. Riley wrote:
[snip]

Since I asked about supporting the language it is hardly the end of
the world. Now, since you were not able or not willing to help I
really dont know why you bother lecturing. You may or may not realise
this but this is a PROGRAMMING group dedicated to the C language and I
asked about a programming utility for the C langauge. Since I was
specifically asking about C bindings for emacs then here he is valid
as .emacs. Or would your brother in .emacs tell me to come here since
emacs is, in fact, built in lispp?

Your question is obviously about Emacs. Ask in gnu.emacs.help.


August

 

[Chris Dollin]

Since I asked about supporting the language it is hardly the end of
the world. Now, since you were not able or not willing to help I
really dont know why you bother lecturing. You may or may not realise
this but this is a PROGRAMMING group dedicated to the C language

.... the /language/, as defined by the standard(s), rather than things
that happen to target the language, or use the language, or help you
edit the language.

 

[Dik T. Winter]

>
> Without wanting to continue this too long, why would it be incorrect
> to ask seasoned programmers such a question? Programmers who,
> presumably, use some sort of IDE/Editor combo to support the C
> language development.

It is your presumption that is wrong. I think that most seasoned C
programmers do not use some sort of IDE/Editor combo at all, or at
most a very primitive set. At least, I do. When I get an editor
that highlights an opening brace when I enter a closing brace, I
find that very distracting. The same holds for the other features of
emacs' C mode. When I enter new text I prefer, indeed, emacs (but
without features, please); but when I come to changing text I prefer
vi. But that is coming close to editor wars. And it explains why
I use ksh with emacs modes but have as visual editor vi.

 

[Vladimir S. Oka]

Since I asked about supporting the language it is hardly the end of
the world. Now, since you were not able or not willing to help I
really dont know why you bother lecturing. You may or may not realise
this but this is a PROGRAMMING group dedicated to the C language and I
asked about a programming utility for the C langauge. Since I was

And where exactly does it say /programming/ /utility/? It's:

comp -- for computer
lang -- for language
c -- for C

There's comp.programming to discuss various programming techniques (any
langauge). There are also groups that deal with various flavours of
tools.

Your question was quite obviously about the /tools/ so you were
politely directed to where you can get better help. What could have
been added was that, if you encounter any further questions about C
/language/ this is the place to ask them (e.g. if you're implementing
in C and encounter problems, or if you need clarification for your
references).

specifically asking about C bindings for emacs then here he is valid
as .emacs. Or would your brother in .emacs tell me to come here since
emacs is, in fact, built in lispp?

/Emacs/ C /bindings/ have really nothing to do with C, have they (I
don't think they're mentioned in the C Standard)? They /do/ however
have /everything/ to do with Emacs, hence an Emacs group is the
appropriate place to ask.

As for your comment about implementation this is clearly wrong since
many questions cover the various standards and implementations as
related to how the language is.

I don't quite understand this, but: there is only /one/ current C
Standard and that's how the C language /is/. Implementation defined
issues are discussed here, but mostly, and preferrably, in terms how to
avoid their pitfalls.

Your question, OTH, does not address either the C language, or any of
its implementations. So, why do you insist we're wrong,and you're
right?

Sheesh. Save your energy for helping someone.

Indeed. You should better channel yours towards solving your problem.

 

[Richard G. Riley]

And where exactly does it say /programming/ /utility/? It's:

Oh ffs. Another member of this NGs self appoined mafioC.

comp -- for computer
lang -- for language
c -- for C

Thank you for taking the time and effort to lecture me on the use of
this group. I would like to thank you very much. The fact that you are
clearly unable to answer the question I asked is also noted.

Please be prompt in replying to everyone that asks about algorithms or
real world solutions and remind them that this group is reserved to talk about
the language only.

I appreciate your input : you have been a great help.

 

[Vladimir S. Oka]

Oh ffs. Another member of this NGs self appoined mafioC.

No need to be rude. It does not make your POV any stronger, quite the
opposite.

Thank you for taking the time and effort to lecture me on the use of
this group. I would like to thank you very much. The fact that you are
clearly unable to answer the question I asked is also noted.

And that's exactly why your question is OT here.

If I knew Emacs, I'd hang out in it's NG, and wouldn't see your
question. If I knew Emacs /and/ C, I'd reply with a followup-to set to
an Emacs group, and not here. Not knowing Emacs, the best I can do is
point you to where the Emacs experts hang out. Whether I know any C can
be seen in my various other posts.

Please be prompt in replying to everyone that asks about algorithms or
real world solutions and remind them that this group is reserved to talk about
the language only.

You obviously didn't lurk long enough, or carefuly enough...

I appreciate your input : you have been a great help.

You're welcome.

 

[Richard G. Riley]

No need to be rude. It does not make your POV any stronger, quite the
opposite.

Now you are advising on etiquette? You really are quite the complete
poster.

I dont know why I am discussing this because it is clearly like
banging my head against a brick wall with some of you zealots. You are
clearly an intelligent man so consider this once more:

I had a requirement to access C language APIS/Stdrefs from within a
programmers editor.

I was unable to find info elsewhere.

This group is dedicated to C.

It is not a leap of faith to assume that the people who contribute
here use editors.

From this we may deduce that maybe some of these C programmers use
emacs.

From here we obtain that amazing conclusion that possibly C
programmers who post here know how to bring up context C help from
within emacs.

Still with me?

Now lets make it more complicated : where is a C programmer who uses
emacs as his editor more likely to be?

com*.emacs?
com*.c?

Hmmm.

Hence I asked here.

And that, for me, is the end of this ridiculous discussion

 

[Flash Gordon]

Richard G. Riley wrote:

Now lets make it more complicated : where is a C programmer who uses
emacs as his editor more likely to be?

com*.emacs?
com*.c?

Obviously, if they are sufficiently interested in both, they will hang
out in both.

Hmmm.

Hence I asked here.

And that, for me, is the end of this ridiculous discussion

Yes, it is ridiculous that you won't accept that your question should
have been asked else where.
--
Flash Gordon
Living in interesting times.
Web site - http://home.flash-gordon.me.uk/
comp.lang.c posting guidlines and intro -
http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/Intro_to_clc

 

[Richard G. Riley]

Richard G. Riley wrote:



Obviously, if they are sufficiently interested in both, they will hang
out in both.

Are you joking? Why would a C programmer who uses emacs "hang out" in
an emacs newsgroup? he doesnt "do emacs" for a living. he almost
certainly "does C".

I dont know. Maybe I've gone mad or something but I completely fail to
see the problem. And the more "reasons" I get for why I shouldnt have
asked this perfectly innocous c related question here are total
hogwash in my opinion. Still, it is a pubilc NG and if you want to
berate me for asking such a question here then it is your right to do so.

Yes, it is ridiculous that you won't accept that your question should
have been asked else where.

It was : and I didnt get any info so I asked here. Now, I must try and
not take the bait and put this on the "finished with" list.

 

[Vladimir S. Oka]

Are you joking? Why would a C programmer who uses emacs "hang out" in
an emacs newsgroup? he doesnt "do emacs" for a living. he almost
certainly "does C".

I struggle with your logic. If he does C for a living using Emacs, then
surely his livelyhood also depends on the latter?

It was : and I didnt get any info so I asked here. Now, I must try and
not take the bait and put this on the "finished with" list.

Do as you please, it is on mine.

*plonk*

 

[Richard G. Riley]

I struggle with your logic. If he does C for a living using Emacs, then
surely his livelyhood also depends on the latter?

I hope to hell you are not a professional programmer with reasoning
like this. Tell me, do you "hang out" in a newsgroup dedicated to your
newsreader? No? Thought not.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

Now lets make it more complicated : where is a C programmer who
uses emacs as his editor more likely to be?

com*.emacs?
com*.c?

Hmmm.

Hence I asked here.

And that, for me, is the end of this ridiculous discussion

And you were told some time ago that your conclusion was in error,
and that com*.emacs would be a better possibility. Instead of
accepting the advice and going somewhere that your basic wants
might be satisfied, you remained here arguing and generally making
life unpleasant for us all, not to mention consuming bandwidth. In
the process you have exposed you own rude boorishness, and
persuaded many of us to ignore you. If you have some topical
question in the future this will affect the response you get.
PLONK

--
"If you want to post a followup via groups.google.com, don't use
the broken "Reply" link at the bottom of the article. Click on
"show options" at the top of the article, then click on the
"Reply" at the bottom of the article headers." - Keith Thompson
More details at: <http://cfaj.freeshell.org/google/>
Also see <http://www.safalra.com/special/googlegroupsreply/>