How to convert Infix notation to postfix notation

[Nick]

I take issue with this childish use of language: "what the programmer
'wants'. What the user 'wants'". In applications programming,
correctness and maintainability are what's needed, not satisfaction of
desires.

I'm now completely lost. Every time anyone suggests anything that makes
your code more correct or easy to maintain you say that it works in your
environment and is maintainable by you. Then, in response to perfectly
correct use of the English "want" you come up with this.

As you are prone to throwing philosophy around, I'd suggest these
"wants" are instances of Dennett's intentional stance anyway.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Mr Nilges is the clc juvenile posting pet. He has spent most of the last
year reminding readers of the errata in Herb Schildt's books. His
badly written but entertaining rants on personalities and programing
occaisionally touch on his limited knowledge of C.

My contribution of equal worth:

Mrs. Banks (Walter's ma) wears army boots.

 

[spinoza1111]

I'm now completely lost.  Every time anyone suggests anything that makes
your code more correct or easy to maintain you say that it works in your
environment and is maintainable by you.  Then, in response to perfectly

Actually, I've never said anything like that. When Richard jiggered
gcc options to come up with a stream of complaints that the strings
passed to tester() in my code to testCase() I said that I'd be happy
to add const to all read-only parameters in the code, and this is on
my to do for rel 5, along with using Navia and, possibly, gcc
compilers to compile rel 5 to see what differs.

I don't like Heathfield in the slightest, and I think he's a nasty
piece of work, representative of the worst, most abusive and most
unethical software manager. Nonetheless when he made what appeared to
be a genuine technical contribution to this discussion, I immediately
agreed to incorporating it and identifying Heathfield as the
contributor...although the name for him on the Change Record in the
code shall be Fat Bastard, since he probably won't want me to use his
real name, and it pleases me to call him Fat Bastard ... in view of
the destruction and ruin he's wreaked on clc for the past ten years
this is mild.

I did point out that const really doesn't accomplish much. I
experimented with it on MS C to discover that it's easily circumvented
by using another pointer to point to the "const" item; this is a
logical consequence of the fact that C presents a von Neumann machine
with aliasing and pointers enabled. But another poster showed that
more sophisticated C compilers are able to catch SOME aliased
references to the pointer declared const, and as a result I'm
considering installing gcc.

But, Malcolm McClean has pointed out that const doesn't fix what it
purports to fix. It provides nothing like the protection provided by
Visual Basic's ByVal or the standard default value parameters of C
Sharp. So, I am now wondering whether my time hasn't been wasted by
Richard. I did not use const when I was a C "expert" and Malcolm has
pointed out that Ritchie doesn't like it.

I think Richard may have raised a red herring in order to appear to be
making a contribution and to prove my "incompetence". He's been making
claims about my competence in a way that's criminally and civilly
libel under the law of his country, the UK, ever since a discussion in
1999 in comp.programming in which Richard's ignorance and low culture
were exposed and he conducted a campaign of personal destruction,
directed against me, which included utterly absurd claims
("comp.programming not about programmers").

correct use of the English "want" you come up with this.

As you are prone to throwing philosophy around, I'd suggest these
"wants" are instances of Dennett's intentional stance anyway.

Before you read advanced material I'd suggest mastering the basics
(Copi et al. on informal logic).

You see, "tu quoque" ("you're another") is an ugly fallacy which is
the favorite of men in prison and other riff raff: "I'm a thief but so
are the big shots".

To establish the validity of an argument based on this fallacy, you
must "norm" the behavior that you charge your opponent with. Here, it
has to be OK for people to make technical decisions based on what they
want, or what they can get away with, for me to be just another wanter
who has no claim to any better reasons for technical decisions.

 

[spinoza1111]

In

spinoza1111wrote:


How nice. Grow up.

No, you grow up, or get out.

You don't think a programmer wants correctness and maintainability? (I
know you're a counter-example, but I'm talking generally.)

No, I think 99.9% of programmers want a cushy job. To get something
correct and maintainable, you need to force them to work in
cooperative groups with none of your office politics, your time-
wasting, and your campaigns of personal destruction...whether old-
style structured programming workgroups such as have been shown to be
successful at NASA (despite NASA's more general culture of normalize
deviance), or "buddy system" Extreme Programming.

But if you set them to work separately, and force them to always be
what Adorno, in Minima Moralia, called "candidates for posts" (always
on probation in at-will employment) then they will do as little as
possible, backstab and obfuscate, because you, their incompetent
manager (yes, you, Richard) like to make people unhappy.

And that, my dear fellow, is a fault.

I've worked for many clients. That does indeed include a string of
financial organisations, yes, but it is by no means limited to them.

So what else? Pubs?

Because that's what the clients wanted. Like a chainsaw or an electric

Eye roll. Crotch grab. A software system is not a tool. "Tool" is a
metaphor.

drill, C is easy to abuse (and may thus be considered unsafe, in the
sense that you wouldn't want to see the results of its use by the
ignorant or the mentally unstable), but it is a powerful language
with very fast implementations. Despite your inability to use it
properly, it *can* be used properly, and to do so is not especially
difficult.

. Seems to me that I am using it properly, and that I've
contributed more new code than you ever have, taking the risks you're
afraid to take: that the thugs in this group will attack creativity.

You keep repeating yourself, Fat Bastard, but saying "Nilges is
incompetent" twice, four times, what ever, doesn't make it true.
Wasting our time with your const "red herring" (the false claim that
omitting const for a read-only parameter is a mistake and not a matter
of taste) shows both incompetence and dishonesty. I agreed to add
const to rel 5 just to shut you up and see how it works, but I'm
reconsidering.

<usual snippage of material-that-Nilges-is-too-stupid-to-snip>

Losing your temper won't make your case.

 

[spinoza1111]

In





spinoza1111wrote:


How would you know? In fact, Malcolm's comparison function was badly
broken, but you don't know enough about the language to know that.

OK, Richard, you're out of this discussion...again. As in the case of
Seebach, your technical contributions will not be read or
incorporated. If I decide to make read-only parameters const, you
won't be credited.

Too many times, you make dishonest points merely to dominate the
discussion and make people fear being labeled by you, repeatedly, as
"incompetent" in such a way as to dominate the conversation.

This is because you're attacking Malcolm for making a point that
doesn't make your case.

I am also investigating your relationship with SAMS to discover
whether this publisher is retaining you dominate and destroy clc for
business reasons.

 

[Seebs]

No, I think 99.9% of programmers want a cushy job.

Hmm.

You know, I really, really, want to disagree with this statement, but...

All I can say for sure is, I've met enough programmers who want other
things more that I think the number's gotta be lower than that. I
think I disagree with this as written, but if you'd said 90%, I'd probably
just sigh.

To get something
correct and maintainable, you need to force them to work in
cooperative groups with none of your office politics, your time-
wasting, and your campaigns of personal destruction.

Total agreement. Leave your egos at the door, people.

..whether old-
style structured programming workgroups such as have been shown to be
successful at NASA (despite NASA's more general culture of normalize
deviance), or "buddy system" Extreme Programming.

I've heard some great stuff about XP, but haven't been able to try it.
We have been forced to settle for an aggressive and thorough review
process, and a lot of emphasis on a corporate culture which rejects attempts
to "fix blame" and focuses instead on solving problems.

But if you set them to work separately, and force them to always be
what Adorno, in Minima Moralia, called "candidates for posts" (always
on probation in at-will employment) then they will do as little as
possible, backstab and obfuscate, because you, their incompetent
manager (yes, you, Richard) like to make people unhappy.

I'm not convinced of this. My coworkers and I are all, I think,
technically "at-will" employees, but we have justified confidence, based
on previous experience, that management will generally back us and support
us reasonably, and we react accordingly.

Seems to me that I am using it properly,

You might want to read up on the Dunning-Kruger effect. It's very risky
to try to evaluate your own competence without a LOT of data points and
samples. In particular, if you find yourself thinking you're better at
something than a lot of other people, and they don't think you're good
at it, that's often a warning sign.

Losing your temper won't make your case.

Hah! Today I am using an irony meter that was tested out on the public
morality policy claims of politicians who were later busted having anonymous
sex in order to obtain drugs, and you didn't even make it out of the
yellow zone.

-s

 

[Richard Bos]

I think you mean

#define TRUE (-1)

And if I saw that, I'd still wonder why the author used -1 rather
than 1.

I wouldn't: it's obviously because he started out on a variety of MS
Basic, rather than on C, a saner version of BASIC, or some other
language altogether.

Richard

 

[Richard Bos]

Since you seem to be very good at learning new languages, I suggest you
put your writings in Dutch, then.

Mijn hemel, nee, liever niet zeg. Dat soort aarsfladder, en dan ook nog
in steenkolen-Nederlands? Dan liever in Lojban. Hij lijkt me een
typische spreker van Lojban.

Richard

 

[Julienne Walker]

I've heard some great stuff about XP, but haven't been able to try it.
We have been forced to settle for an aggressive and thorough review
process, and a lot of emphasis on a corporate culture which rejects attempts
to "fix blame" and focuses instead on solving problems.

I feel compelled to quote this for emphasis. Placing blame is
generally counter-productive and only results in leaving everyone
involved bitter at the end. Focusing on solving the problem rather
than trying to point fingers is much more productive. I've worked at
companies from both extremes, and I can't describe the amazing
difference in morale, efficiency, and overall quality there is from
setting aside blame in favor of getting the job done as well as
possible.

It's a shame this newsgroup has deteriorated into so much finger
pointing and so little problem solving. This whole finger pointing
crusade of spinoza111's is just another instance in the downward
spiral. I don't bother coming here for insights anymore, just to watch
and enjoy the squabbling. ;-)

 

[Seebs]

It's a shame this newsgroup has deteriorated into so much finger
pointing and so little problem solving. This whole finger pointing
crusade of spinoza111's is just another instance in the downward
spiral. I don't bother coming here for insights anymore, just to watch
and enjoy the squabbling. ;-)

The irony is beautiful. Because he believes it is wrong to attack
persons rather than rationally disputing claims, he has spent a couple
of years frenetically pursuing any and all people he believes to be
part of the "campaign" he imagines against Schildt, flinging derogatory
language and insults constantly at them.

It really is sort of amazing. I keep reading in the hopes that some day
he'll offer some kind of factual claim to support one of his rants, but
it doesn't seem to be on the table.

I do think you have a point about the problem solving. I should post some
puzzles or something.

-s

 

[Ben Bacarisse]

I wouldn't: it's obviously because he started out on a variety of MS
Basic, rather than on C, a saner version of BASIC, or some other
language altogether.

It could also be someone used to BCPL. Not likely in this particular
case but, given C's ancestry, there are probably some people who think
that way because of BCPL. For the record, 1 had taken over even in B.

 

[Phil Carmody]

I believe 'const void *s' applies to *s instead of s. In any case, the
compare function is unlikely to attempt to change anything.

You believe correctly, however, the data in question is **s.

int comparator(void const *pv1, void const *pv2)
{
struct foo * const *p1 = pv1;
....
vs.
struct foo const * const *p1 = pv1;

It's just a matter of honour or duty that makes one chose the latter,
not one of language syntax or semantics.

Phil

 

[Ian Collins]

The irony is beautiful. Because he believes it is wrong to attack
persons rather than rationally disputing claims, he has spent a couple
of years frenetically pursuing any and all people he believes to be
part of the "campaign" he imagines against Schildt, flinging derogatory
language and insults constantly at them.

It really is sort of amazing. I keep reading in the hopes that some day
he'll offer some kind of factual claim to support one of his rants, but
it doesn't seem to be on the table.

That is the typical MO of a troll. Usenet has a long and colourful
history of them!

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Julienne Walker <[email protected]> tried to be sensible, but
ended up singing the same old song, and with the same old meaning...:
....

It's a shame this newsgroup has deteriorated into so much finger
pointing and so little problem solving. This whole finger pointing
crusade of spinoza111's is just another instance in the downward
spiral. I don't bother coming here for insights anymore, just to watch
and enjoy the squabbling. ;-)

Still blaming the victim(s), I see. So typical.

 

[Julienne Walker]

Julienne Walker  <[email protected]> tried to be sensible, but
ended up singing the same old song, and with the same old meaning...:
...


Still blaming the victim(s), I see.  So typical.

There are no victims, in my opinion. If you choose to participate in
the flames, you waive any claim to innocence. Everyone who posts in
such a way is an instigator, which happens to include myself.

Actually, I'm rather surprised that you didn't point out my flagrant
hypocrisy. I emphasize problem solving over finger pointing as a
virtue and then immediately thereafter blame spinoza1111 for helping
in the death spiral of CLC.

Then again, that can be explained away by admitting that I don't enjoy
the virtue of never placing blame. In all honesty, I've been sorely
tempted to buy C: The Complete Reference and write up a complete
objective review just for Ed's viewing pleasure. The only thing
stopping me is the cost of purchasing a book that I'll probably only
open one time.

 

[Seebs]

Actually, I'm rather surprised that you didn't point out my flagrant
hypocrisy.

Don't be. Consider the ludicrousness of calling Spinny a victim, when
he's spent years stalking and harassing various people over their technically
accurate reviews of a book everyone else had pretty much forgotten over.

Then again, that can be explained away by admitting that I don't enjoy
the virtue of never placing blame. In all honesty, I've been sorely
tempted to buy C: The Complete Reference and write up a complete
objective review just for Ed's viewing pleasure. The only thing
stopping me is the cost of purchasing a book that I'll probably only
open one time.

If you think you could make it through the book in one pass, you are
an incurable optimist.

I remain mildly curious as to whether things improved in the 4th edition,
but not curious enough to buy a long-obsolete book to find out.

-s

 

[Robert Latest]

Do your homework instead of reading one or two posts.

Oh, I read plenty of posts. Your initial one got me laughing -- first
you try to save on typing by #defining function declarations for clever
re-use in the later definition, but a few convoluted pages down you
keep forgetting what the prototype actually looked like and therefore
include it in a comment (where it will be out-dated a few code revisions
down the road without the compiler having a chance to notice. You've
struck the holy grail of code maintenance hell).

And since I think C coding style is more topical in this group than
algorithms, I just stick with commenting on the style.

Heathfield is not a C authority nor an authority on programming.

He may not be, but his prose is more convincing and entertaining than
your drivel, which is why I am more inclined to follow his line of
argument than yours. I do somewhat dislike his C coding style though,
but it's still lightyears better than yours.

Instead, he's some
sort of manager who enables and spreads lies and gossip about
competent people which through repetition become the "truth" for the
Real Knuckleheads.

He does tend to be obnoxiously verbous at times, but rarely repetitive.
And most importantly, he doesn't call people names, which is an instant
Usenet reputation-killer (as you were sadly forced to find out).

This is a discussion of a series of solutions to the problem of infix
to polish notation.
[...]

This is not a
discussion of personalities.

Yet it is you who keeps dragging in other people's personality traits.

Unless you have something to contribute
to the topic, please leave.

I most certainly don't and I won't. I'll just stick to contributing
whatever I damn well please.

robert

 

[Julienne Walker]

If you think you could make it through the book in one pass, you are
an incurable optimist.

I remain mildly curious as to whether things improved in the 4th edition,
but not curious enough to buy a long-obsolete book to find out.

According to amazon.com, the 4th addition covers C99 and was published
in 2000. That's hardly what I would consider "long-obsolete". I
suppose you could claim that C is obsolete and therefore any books on
C are also obsolete, but the 4th edition appears new enough to warrant
a review. It doesn't appear to be out of print yet.

 

[Nick]

Actually, I've never said anything like that.

Yes you have. See your responses to me when I said that it is hard to
keep documentation of function parameters and the actual function
parameters in synch.

[big chunk of stuff about const that doesn't really bear on this snipped]

Before you read advanced material I'd suggest mastering the basics
(Copi et al. on informal logic).

Too late.

You see, "tu quoque" ("you're another") is an ugly fallacy which is
the favorite of men in prison and other riff raff: "I'm a thief but so
are the big shots".

You said that it was childish. I suggested it was a perfectly
reasonable way to speak and cited a philosopher to help support this, as
you seem to give more wait to the opinions of philosophers than J Random
Usenet poster. If you want to take that as an insult, all I can
suggest is a phrase involving hats and wearing them. It wasn't intended
as one. If you carry on like this I may well insult you, and when you
do, we'll both know about it.

To establish the validity of an argument based on this fallacy, you
must "norm" the behavior that you charge your opponent with. Here, it
has to be OK for people to make technical decisions based on what they
want, or what they can get away with, for me to be just another wanter
who has no claim to any better reasons for technical decisions.

As I said before, will you please snip signatures - standard Usenet
etiquette and done automatically by most decent pieces of posting software.

[signature block left in as evidence]

 

[Nick]

Then again, that can be explained away by admitting that I don't enjoy
the virtue of never placing blame. In all honesty, I've been sorely
tempted to buy C: The Complete Reference and write up a complete
objective review just for Ed's viewing pleasure. The only thing
stopping me is the cost of purchasing a book that I'll probably only
open one time.

I have a copy I've - err - outgrown. If it wouldn't cost me an arm and
a leg, I'd post it to you.