[OT] Variations of "foo", "bar", etc.

[Irrwahn Grausewitz]

"Roedeln" is not uncommon in German, even if some random dictionaries
don't know about it. ;-)

But, usually, you would write it with an o-Umlaut, wouldn't you? ;^)

 

[Kelsey Bjarnason]

[snips]

For others, try Google[1]:
http://www.google.com/search?q=jargon+metasyntactic+variable

Irrwahn

[1] No, this this is *not* a metasyntactic variable!

foo, baz, bar, google, irrwahn... it is now.

 

[Irrwahn Grausewitz]

[snips]

For others, try Google[1]:
http://www.google.com/search?q=jargon+metasyntactic+variable

Irrwahn

[1] No, this this is *not* a metasyntactic variable!

foo, baz, bar, google, irrwahn... it is now.

Phew, am I glad that Irrwahn isn't my Real(tm) Real-Name(tm) )

--
do not write: void main(...)
do not use gets()
do not cast the return value of malloc()
do not fflush( stdin )
read the c.l.c-faq: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html

 

[Richard Bos]

But, usually, you would write it with an o-Umlaut, wouldn't you? ;^)

Not in ASCII, you wouldn't. Compilers need not accept accented letters
in identifier names, and IMO it isn't sensible to do so.

BTW, "roedel" is a Dutch word, meaning "pack of dogs or wolves".

Richard

 

[Irrwahn Grausewitz]

Not in ASCII, you wouldn't.

Plain or extended ASCII?

Compilers need not accept accented letters
in identifier names, and IMO it isn't sensible to do so.

Ah, at least one who noticed...

BTW, "roedel" is a Dutch word, meaning "pack of dogs or wolves".

Uh-oh, ... I should have known this, though my dutch isn't very
good, this one I should have known! Potverd*****

Irrwahn
--
do not write: void main(...)
do not use gets()
do not cast the return value of malloc()
do not fflush( stdin )
read the c.l.c-faq: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html

 

[Ben Pfaff]

Not in ASCII, you wouldn't. Compilers need not accept accented letters
in identifier names, and IMO it isn't sensible to do so.

C99 makes provisions for accented letters in identifiers.

 

[The Real OS/2 Guy]

^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
Do you know the meaning of the words 'latter' and 'former'? See below.

Yes, you were refered to the both underlined word s.

Then don't respond to *my* comment starting off with 'wrong ... ',
for C's sake!!!!


*Nobody* doubted, and if you reread ///carefully/// you will notice
that we both agree that 'furz' and 'luder' are, albeit not nice,
german words!!!

That's why I sayed look into the dictionary.

 

[Irrwahn Grausewitz]

Yes, you were refered to the both underlined word s.

No, I referred to (the former) two words "farz" and "roedel",
not (the latter) two words "furz" and "luder".

Look up the words "former" and "latter" in one of your famous
dictionaries, and:

1. learn how to read
1.1. learn how to read carefully
2. learn how to read quoted text
2.1. learn how to read quoted text carefully
3. learn how to quote

<SNIP>
--
do not write: void main(...)
do not use gets()
do not cast the return value of malloc()
do not fflush( stdin )
read the c.l.c-faq: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html

 

[pete]

It /is/ a reasonable name,
which illustrates very clearly and elegantly that
the choice of name was not significant.

One of my favorite quotes of all time, this still makes me laugh.

Uh oh, looks like he stole this from my code

http://groups.google.com/[email protected]

 

[Richard Heathfield]

One of my favorite quotes of all time, this still makes me laugh.

http://groups.google.com/[email protected]

It's even funnier if you take a slightly larger quote:

************** I said... ***********

Another example: here's a typical (and naive, if I may make so bold as to
say so) malloc call in the C language:

struct foo *p;

/* lots of code here */

p = (struct foo*)malloc(N * sizeof(struct foo));

If the type of p changes, you have to fix the code in *two* other places
(admittedly both on the same line).

************ EGN replied... *************

Uh oh, looks like he stole this from my code last May

*****************************************

I guess EGN doesn't know, or possible doesn't care, what "naive" means.

(For those who don't know, EGN is a comp.programming troll who occasionally
threatens lawsuits against those who dare to call his C skills into
question. Well worth killfiling.)

 

[Richard Bos]

C99 makes provisions for accented letters in identifiers.

True, but those are about as portable as struct blather{int foo;}
main(), as long as no character set is even required to _have_ accented
letters.

Richard

 

[Dan Pop]

True, but those are about as portable as struct blather{int foo;}
main(), as long as no character set is even required to _have_ accented
letters.

Wrong. C99 supports accented characters in identifiers in UCN format
*only*. The UCN format only requires the base character set. So, you
can include an accented character in a C99 identifier, but you won't see
it as such.

Dan

 

[Edward G. Nilges]

http://groups.google.com/[email protected]

It's even funnier if you take a slightly larger quote:

************** I said... ***********

Another example: here's a typical (and naive, if I may make so bold as to
say so) malloc call in the C language:

struct foo *p;

/* lots of code here */

p = (struct foo*)malloc(N * sizeof(struct foo));

If the type of p changes, you have to fix the code in *two* other places
(admittedly both on the same line).

************ EGN replied... *************

Uh oh, looks like he stole this from my code last May

*****************************************

I guess EGN doesn't know, or possible doesn't care, what "naive" means.

(For those who don't know, EGN is a comp.programming troll who occasionally
threatens lawsuits against those who dare to call his C skills into
question. Well worth killfiling.)

(Sigh.) Im fact, I raised an issue with a social linkage to
programming, the US Data Quality Act. Richard disruptively entered the
thread and repeatedly (in an almost mechanical fashion) called the
linkage off-topic.

During this exchange, I pointed out that it is inappropriate to adopt
C for new projects and the adoption of C constituted private
violations of a notion of "data quality", which is at variance with a
private push, in the US Data Quality Act, to effectively remove data
from public records, based on a standard, of software and data
quality, which private corporations do not meet.

Richard attempted to transform the discussion into one of comparative
C coding skills, as if this was a credential for discussion in what is
not a C group (nor a group for the commercial promotion of one's C
skills). Since in fact I'd used C extensively up until 1993 and since
in fact Princeton saw fit to have me use my C skills in 1992 to assist
the real-life protagonist of the film and book A Beautiful Mind, I did
make some technical contributions in the form of two C programs,
primarily to illustrate that C is not adequate, without extra work, to
an object paradigm.

Because of my reservations as regards the unsafety of C for either
data or software quality, the style was at variance with the
obfuscated slop which seems to be the norm in the C community, and
this attracted a sort of resident gang of trouble-makers who have, as
I pointed out, ruined public newsgroups for their intended purpose, by
intimidation of people with thinner skins than mine.

Today, and after the illegal invasion of Iraq, it is now clear that
both corporations, and governments in the UK and the US who are
overcontrolled by corporations, will indeed lower the quality of data
and the software producing it for good reasons, bad reasons, and no
reasons at all. To do so, they instill self-policing in the form of
overspecialisation and the charge of being "offtopic" whenever the
work, of the low-level intelligence analyst, or C programmer, might be
at variance with high-level agendas.

During the exchange, I was a most unusual "troll" because Richard was
unable to elicit from me the usual salivating and aliteracy of the
"troll", but he has a right to his views. The charge of libel may yet
be made but at this time, since I am paid for writing and development,
the case of Mr Heathfield is simmering and bubbling on what is a very
back burner.

Because my government has concealed environmental information using
the DQA and the self-policed normalization of pushback from scientific
workers, an amazingly well-formed hurricane, known already to be
category 5, may cause deaths on the East Coast because people may not
be sufficiently aware that it is now known that climate change is a
reality, and will cause unusual weather. Last years flame-fest was an
example of how deviance (whether the inappropriate use of C or the
concealment of scientific results) becomes normalized by repeated, and
infantile, attacks on deviance, which attempts to deviate, from what
is itself, deviant.

If the corporate and government establishments in the UK and the US
are able to create a virtual reality, for example by lying as did PM
Blair recently, then note that "programming skill" matters not at all
when considered as the ability to map a physical or social reality
onto a mathematical structure. A series of attacks on this "skill" are
in this model unimportant, both because I so much enjoy software
development (in OO languages and not C) and because the issue is, in
scriptural terms, "as dust and nothing" in the great, Category 5,
scheme of things.