How to convert Infix notation to postfix notation

[Keith Thompson]

The Standard requires implementations to accept the lower case name
<stdio.h>. It does NOT require implementations to accept any other
form. It *allows* them to accept differently-cased forms, but does
not require it. So you have two choices as a programmer: choose
something that ALWAYS works because it's guaranteed to work, or
choose something that might work if you're lucky. It comes as no
surprise to me that you seek to justify the latter choice, but the
former choice is a clear winner.

[...]

In fact, an implementation theoretically could provide a header
<STDIO.H> that's distinct from <stdio.h>. (Perhaps it provides all
the same declarations, but all input and output is quietly mapped
to upper case.) It would be perverse, but conforming.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n805.htm

I don't know how you define being on a committee, but a membership
list is evidence of some form of being "on the committee".

I think there is reason to be concerned about Dicky's clique membership.

When they start making baby errors like this, you begin to worry that
they may be going the way of CBF...

And what a crying, bleeding shame that would be for poor Dicky.

 

[Walter Banks]

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n805.htm

I don't know how you define being on a committee, but a membership
list is evidence of some form of being "on the committee".

I just grepped all of the electronic SC22/WG14 N documents. They
cover the period Sept 1996 to date. Mr. Schildt's name appears 3 times
N649 Feb 97,N805 Feb 98, and N880 May 99 All of them in
annual reports as a member of J11.

There is nothing I can find that indicates he participated in SC22/WG14
He may have attended but there in nothing in papers attributed to
him.

The defect report dr_159 mentions The Annotated ANSI C
Standard by Herbert Schildt by name of the use and interpretation
of ISO materials.

w..

 

[Walter Banks]

I think there is reason to be concerned about Dicky's clique membership.

When they start making baby errors like this, you begin to worry that
they may be going the way of CBF...

And what a crying, bleeding shame that would be for poor Dicky.

Membership in J11 is a long way from participating in WG14.

 

[John Kelly]

This hounding of Herb is bordering on the insane.

If the lunatics take over the asylum ...

 

[Seebs]

I guess that is why Microsoft hosted two of the WG14
standards meetings within the last few years.

And although that hotel was way too expensive, it was indubitably posh.

-s

 

[Ben Bacarisse]

In


It is indeed. Thank you. Do you happen to know how many meetings he
attended?

No, I have no knowledge beyond what is in public files. I presume the
membership list is of people who have signed up to get papers and such
when they are circulated.

 

[Seebs]

No, I have no knowledge beyond what is in public files. I presume the
membership list is of people who have signed up to get papers and such
when they are circulated.

Yes.

FWIW, I've not yet heard of anyone claiming that Schildt has ever
participated on the committee in any way, except that presumably he paid
dues.

BTW, I now have my 4th edition TCR, and as expected, he's "fixed" several
of the bugs reported on my page (at least once poorly, and at least once
by simply dropping the example), but there's still plenty left.

-s

 

[Seebs]

No, I have no knowledge beyond what is in public files. I presume the
membership list is of people who have signed up to get papers and such
when they are circulated.

Yes.

FWIW, I've not yet heard of anyone claiming that Schildt has ever
participated on the committee in any way, except that presumably he paid
dues.

BTW, I now have my 4th edition TCR, and as expected, he's "fixed" several
of the bugs reported on my page (at least once poorly, and at least once
by simply dropping the example), but there's still plenty left.

-s

 

[John Kelly]

Or, more precisely, I am well on the way IF I persist in coding C on
the ferry, and ramp back up to a former level of knowledge. This may
not happen because when I code C I have an urge to kick small animals
and break up Salvation Army meetings; so much of C is an insult to
intelligence.

The problem with programming employment is, it's a job that appeals to
lazy people, and many want it. With more applicants than jobs, someone
has to lose. Perhaps even those with outstanding skills.

Platonism reigns. Thus in the second year of high school there's no
such thing as a complex number, but for the uni math major there is.
This causes Seebach and Heathfield to solemnly and with no little
silliness to say absurd, pernicious and stupid things about C and far
worse, about people.

Without a programming job, I may still code for the joy of it. You may
even find joy overcoming the deficiencies of a language. It's a puzzle
to be solved.

I've established that writing UNIX C code, giving it away with an Apache
license, and talking about it here, perturbs Seebach and Heathfield much
more profoundly than any argument or criticism. I've shown you the way.

Joy!

 

[Seebs]

The problem with programming employment is, it's a job that appeals to
lazy people, and many want it. With more applicants than jobs, someone
has to lose. Perhaps even those with outstanding skills.

This is an overgeneralization -- there's more jobs than people at the
outstanding skills level.

I've established that writing UNIX C code, giving it away with an Apache
license, and talking about it here, perturbs Seebach and Heathfield much
more profoundly than any argument or criticism. I've shown you the way.

Won't do you much good, Spinny's only interested in Windows C code.

Actually, though, what perturbs me isn't the code per se; it's the spam
and the lies. If you wanted to actually talk about C code, as opposed to
talking about Unix interfaces, that'd be fine, and it'd be interesting.

Of course, thanks to the untreated NPD, you perceive any assertion that
the code isn't the ideal Platonic form of an excellent program as a personal
attack. And there is the minor thing that you latch on to any criticism,
however blatantly insane, of people who have criticized you, and endorse
it. That does sort of undermine things.

-s

 

[spinoza1111]

The problem with programming employment is, it's a job that appeals to
lazy people, and many want it.  With more applicants than jobs, someone
has to lose.  Perhaps even those with outstanding skills.



Without a programming job, I may still code for the joy of it.  You may
even find joy overcoming the deficiencies of a language.  It's a puzzle
to be solved.

I've established that writing UNIX C code, giving it away with an Apache
license, and talking about it here, perturbs Seebach and Heathfield much
more profoundly than any argument or criticism.  I've shown you the way..

I'd rather use C Sharp, but I agree: creation is the thing. But I
won't post C Sharp here except for comparision purposes. I shall use
the Microsoft.public.dotnet group for purely C Sharp issues.

 

[spinoza1111]

Yes.

FWIW, I've not yet heard of anyone claiming that Schildt has ever
participated on the committee in any way, except that presumably he paid
dues.

BTW, I now have my 4th edition TCR, and as expected, he's "fixed" several
of the bugs reported on my page (at least once poorly, and at least once
by simply dropping the example), but there's still plenty left.

You've never made a full accounting of these "bugs", and we keep on
discovering that they're not bugs. Talking about "the stack" isn't a
bug: it has been a way to explain, understand and to implement runtime
since the early days: cf. Michael L Scott's Programming Language
Pragmatics and countless other references. Nor is talking about twos-
complement a bug in connection with C: the C programmer has to know
what negative numbers will look like in debug output. Calling an 8 bit
value "ASCII" is not a bug, because 7 bit ascii is mostly stored in 8
bit units and the C programmer needs to know this.

It is folly to want to code in a completely portable way in C by
following the standard, for C is sufficiently low level that it is
malpractice to expect your code to run on a random new platform
without a line by line review and careful testing. C is designed to be
"close to the machine" and this entails its specific behavior depends
upon the machine.

Heading a chapter "static global variables" is at worst an error in
the text and not a "bug".

To say "this shorthand [combined assignment and arithmetic] works for
all binary operators" when the author's local meaning is clear from
context to be "the binary arithmetic operators" is to be an ignorant
smartassed punk, and like talking about the stack, it's not a bug:
it's not even a mistake in the text because a commonly accepted
meaning of "binary operator" in a textual section covering the two-
operand arithmetic ops is the two-operand arithmetic ops.

Most of the about 20 errors identified as "currently known" in CTCN
(where "currently known" directly contradicts your claims of hundreds
and that there's a drinking game in the book, and means you're lying)
are in fact not bugs at all.

The fun is in fact shooting down your examples.

 

[spinoza1111]

In



The Standard requires implementations to accept the lower case name
<stdio.h>. It does NOT require implementations to accept any other
form. It *allows* them to accept differently-cased forms, but does
not require it. So you have two choices as a programmer: choose
something that ALWAYS works because it's guaranteed to work, or
choose something that might work if you're lucky. It comes as no
surprise to me that you seek to justify the latter choice, but the
former choice is a clear winner.





That's right. (And I verified that what you quote is what is written
there.)


It's an error. Seebs is right. The table to which he refers should
have been given in lower case. Note that Herbert Schildt habitually
uses lower case in actual code samples.




Rubbish. Firstly, I know of no evidence whatsoever to support the
claim that Herbert Schildt was on the C99 committee. Secondly, I know
that several highly active members of the original committee cannot
recall seeing Herbert Schildt at even a single C89 committee meeting.

We already know he was but did not participate. I believe he took a
look at what was going down and decided that it was a waste of spirit
in an expense of shame.

 

[David Thompson]

In a sample of 30,952 spam messages, I found none dated 2038.

And in my (much smaller and unsystematic) experience, mail spam that
is not dated correctly (or incorrectly in the same ways that happen to
legit traffic, such as clock skew or wrong timezone rules) is usually
*pre*dated one to several years in the past, possibly in an attempt to
sort first when sorted in origination order (as I do), but quite
possibly just incompetent spam tools or use.

OTOH, I have seen quite a lot of HTTP cookies, and a few but not many
HTTP cacheable bodies, set to expire near y2038. But not modified
then. (Due to the sort of mixup above, I once got some bodies
purportedly created several hours in the future, but expired already!)

 

[Chad]

Yes.

FWIW, I've not yet heard of anyone claiming that Schildt has ever
participated on the committee in any way, except that presumably he paid
dues.

BTW, I now have my 4th edition TCR, and as expected, he's "fixed" several
of the bugs reported on my page (at least once poorly, and at least once
by simply dropping the example), but there's still plenty left.

What are the requirements to get on such a committee? I'm just curious
because this guy I know ,who is credited with creating one of the very
first web spiders when he was 13, told me that he was only a member of
the "Apache Committee" during his freshman year at MIT. Ie, he never
could get on the actual committee itself. He eventually lost interest,
started a wireless networking company that hold several patents
related to wireless networking, and then sold this company to Google.

 

[Seebs]

What are the requirements to get on such a committee?

For the ANSI committee? Send them a check. Seriously, that's basically
it. I got curious, decided to start going to meetings. Sent check, got
membership, started attending meetings. There's no approval, there's no
non-approval, and so on.

ISO, I think it's just company national bodies (ANSI for the US, etc.),
and it's whatever the country does.

I'm just curious
because this guy I know ,who is credited with creating one of the very
first web spiders when he was 13, told me that he was only a member of
the "Apache Committee" during his freshman year at MIT. Ie, he never
could get on the actual committee itself.

Which committee? Apache is not an international standard (at least, not in
the sense of being formalized by ISO), so their policies and setup might
be very different.

He eventually lost interest,
started a wireless networking company that hold several patents
related to wireless networking, and then sold this company to Google.

Cool.

-s

 

[Chad]

For the ANSI committee?  Send them a check.  Seriously, that's basically
it.  I got curious, decided to start going to meetings.  Sent check, got
membership, started attending meetings.  There's no approval, there's no
non-approval, and so on.

ISO, I think it's just company national bodies (ANSI for the US, etc.),
and it's whatever the country does.


Which committee?  Apache is not an international standard (at least, not in
the sense of being formalized by ISO), so their policies and setup might
be very different.

<OT>
I have no idea which committee. Actually, I'm kind of scared to ask
him because I know he will give me this crazy explanation. In other
words, it would be like some comp.lang.c responses. I would end up
having to re-read it a few times before I could make heads or tails
out of the actual response.
</OT>

 

[spinoza1111]

For the ANSI committee?  Send them a check.  Seriously, that's basically
it.  I got curious, decided to start going to meetings.  Sent check, got
membership, started attending meetings.  There's no approval, there's no
non-approval, and so on.

Wow. No need to have a real programming job or take any computer
science classes; just write a check; by your own admission,

(1) You have never taken a computer science class
(2) Your job, while it involves the creation of "tools" for the guys
at the office, is officially some sort of bug sender onner
(3) You are under medication for learning and attention disorders

and yet, you think it's perfectly fine to enable a campaign of
personal destruction against a man

(1) With a Master's degree in computer science from the Univ of
Illinois
(2) Who worked as a real programmer while you were watching Scooby Doo
(3) Who implemented a compiler for C
(4) Who wrote a large if flawed book (and several others thereafter)
(5) Who mastered C on a platform which makes it more difficult to do
so

You bought the authority which appears on the Schildt bio on wikipedia
where you are quoted. And you maintain it not by any accomplishment
until recently (when you co-authored and then wrote a book) but by
constantly labeling your colleaugues incompetent and crazy.

I am willing to concede that a person doesn't need formal academic
qualifications to speak with authority on cs matters and that today,
it's still somewhat possible to be a reasonably learned autodidact. I
myself had to leave the DePaul MSCS program because of family
responsibilities after earning straight As and one B (in a compiler
class ironically) and of course, it is trivially true that the men who
invented compsci did not major in compsci.

But this should not authorize an autistic twerp to enable campaigns of
personal destruction.

Herb worked hard as did any number of McGraw-Hill editors and
technical reviewers (whose reputations you also mindlessly trash).
Kathy Sierra, the target of a similarly infantile attack, also worked
hard. I worked 24/7 on my book.

Under capitalism, I fully understand, this labor is so expropriated
that the "hard working programmer" can be at-will a figure of fun as
people like you ape the worst of the leisure class in finding fault
with the performance of tasks you haven't accomplished and cannot do.

But under a labor theory value which is by no means restricted to Marx
or Marxist economics, the producer has rights to his intended meaning
which in "C: The Complete Nonsense" you disregarded.

 

[Nick Keighley]

Wow. No need to have a real programming job or take any computer
science classes; just write a check; by your own admission,

(1) You have never taken a computer science class
(2) Your job, while it involves the creation of "tools" for the guys
at the office, is officially some sort of bug sender onner
(3) You are under medication for learning and attention disorders

I didn't know there *was* a mediacation for autism. Are you confusing
it with Attention Deficit Disorder?

and yet, you think it's perfectly fine to enable a campaign of
personal destruction against a man

(1) With a Master's degree in computer science from the Univ of
Illinois
(2) Who worked as a real programmer while you were watching Scooby Doo
(3) Who implemented a compiler for C

a toy compiler for C

(4) Who wrote a large if flawed book (and several others thereafter)
(5) Who mastered C on a platform which makes it more difficult to do
so

what Windows? In what way is it harder to learn C on Windows than
anything else? Ah I remmember those memory models... What is a HUGE
pointer anyway? Modern Windows machines are fine. If you want to write
unportable crap you can write it on any platform.

<snip>