Should we broaden the topicality of this group?

[santosh]

...

This just goes to show how totally clueless (or possibly, outright evil)
you really are. It is perfectly clear to most of us that referring to
Windows as "your particular platform" is intended as a slam. That it
is possible to interpret this meaning away (as you have done) is, of
course, part of what makes for a good slam. Something about "Aesopean
language"...

Honestly, you are being overly sensitive. I'm sure the vast majority of
participants in this group take that phrase at face value. One thing that
hasn't happened yet to this group is the "Windows vs. Linux (UNIX)" flame
wars found elsewhere. Let's keep it that way.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

This just goes to show how totally clueless (or possibly, outright evil)
you really are. It is perfectly clear to most of us that referring to
Windows as "your particular platform" is intended as a slam. That it
is possible to interpret this meaning away (as you have done) is, of
course, part of what makes for a good slam. Something about "Aesopean
language"...

Honestly, you are being overly sensitive. I'm sure the vast majority of
participants in this group take that phrase at face value. One thing that
hasn't happened yet to this group is the "Windows vs. Linux (UNIX)" flame
wars found elsewhere. Let's keep it that way.[/QUOTE]

It is not me who is overly sensitive. Nor is it *me* who is tempting the
fate of a "Windows vs. Linux (UNIX)" flame war.

IOW, you're a lying sack of crap (TM).

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Philip Potter said:



You might want to look a little harder. At least two mainstream vendors,
Microsoft and Borland, habitually provide <conio.h> with their
implementations, and the contents are very different (although there are
similarities). For example, we frequently see clrscr() cited as a
"screen-clearing function", but IIRC Microsoft have never provided one in
their <conio.h> - ever.

Admittedly, Borland was big news in their time, but does anybody really
use their compilers anymore?

(Waiting for some regular to chime in and say, yes, they use it every
day... But that's not the point and you know it.)

 

[Richard Heathfield]

[Since my filter's off at present, I actually saw this reply, and it seems
innocuous enough, so I'll assume it was asked in good faith.]

Kenny McCormack said:

Admittedly, Borland was big news in their time, but does anybody really
use their compilers anymore?

You can tell the continuing popularity of Borland compilers from the number
of code snippets posted here that contain calls to the clrscr function.

(Waiting for some regular to chime in and say, yes, they use it every
day... But that's not the point and you know it.)

No, you're right that it isn't the point. As it happens, when I do have
cause to compile a Q&D command line program in Windows (which happens
three or four times in each blue moon), I invariably use Borland, because
bcc32 -A is two characters shorter than cl -Za -W4 (sad but true).

But no, that's not the point. The point is that, if nobody is using Borland
compilers, where are all these clrscr calls coming from? Sure, some of
them might be from DJGPP, which works hard to emulate the Borland libs -
but not *all* of them, surely?

 

[Charlton Wilbur]

OW> Any loosening of the current topicality 'rules' (i.e. other
OW> than your groups P,N,C) will only make it harder to find and
OW> read the good posts.

....unless the topicality discussion quiets some of the trolls by
making it clear to them what the majority view is. It probably won't,
but hey, it's worth a try.

The real problem this group has, I think, is not topicality but a
disagreement about what's rude: there is a small but vocal group of
people who interpret a response along the lines of "that's a
[platform] question, not a standard C question, and you should ask it
in [platform-specific forum]" as inappropriately rude and dismissive.
Add to that with a few people who are knowledgeable but pedantic
(pedantry being perceived by that small but vocal group as useless
nit-picking) and a few people who are looking to pick fights, and you
get the current situation.

There are a few people in this group -- and if we all made lists of
who we think they are, there would probably be 3 or 4 names on
everyone's list -- who make ten or more posts complaining about other
people's attempts at helpful responses for every helpful response they
themselves post. This is also part of the problem.

So I'm not sure that the problem really is topicality. I suspect that
if the topicality rules were entirely discarded, the group would
remain toxic and hostile, only it would have fewer experts
participating in the discussions.

Charlton

 

[Al Balmer]

I think we need to distinguish between cases where the error is in
ordinary C code within a program which uses extensions, and cases where
the error is in the extensions. In the former case, the wrong single
sentence answer /may/ be caught by others who don't know the subject, in
the latter, it may not.


But when the problem is a C problem and not a problem with the
extension-using code, if this isn't the right group, which group is?

I agree with you, but your reply has nothing to do with my message.
You've just repeated the same comments you've made to others.

Now, if you really pay attention, I think you'll see that the C
question buried in the non-standard program usually is discerned and
answered here. It may be true that some dismiss any question with
non-standard components, but it's just as true that some don't. As I
said elsethread, that's why we allow more than one reply. In fact, you
are perfectly welcome to implement your own suggestion and answer any
C questions that come up, even if another line in the code is non-ISO.

Did you have any comments on what I actually wrote?

 

[Al Balmer]

(Regarding a message from Kenny McCormack)

Honestly, you are being overly sensitive.

No, he isn't. He's being a troll, as usual. You've been around long
enough to know that.

 

[Al Balmer]

I didn't write about what csc or clc are for, I wrote about what I think
they should be for.

Ah. Then you mean "should be", rather than "is."

It doesn't seem there are a lot of discussion about the typesetting, the
choice of paper and so on in that group.

Not a lot, but it's on topic there.

I never meant that. And I wonder how you could think I meant that. Is
there something lacking in my english expression or did you play some
language trick like I tried just above?

You said theory. You may have meant something else, but I don't know
what.

They aren't used in your practice? In my practice, I've yet to see any
program of importance be done without relying on guarantees which aren't
made by the standard.

I said, "The C programming language as used in practice." The C
programming language is the language defined by the standard. In my
practice, I also use many things which are not guaranteed by the
standard (but the standard explicitly allows them.) I guarantee that
hardly anyone here would be interested in some of them. I program
mainly for Unix, and when I have a question about the library
functions which let me use TCP/IP, I know where to go for an
authoritative answer. I occasionally do some Windows programming, and
again, I know where to go for questions about moving a program to
dot-net. Hint - it isn't here, even though all the above is done with
C, C extensions, and C libraries.

Where did you get that I want to deprive someone of the best venue for
their question or problem? I just wrote that I though there are questions
outside the standard C for which this group should be the best venue.

I
don't want discussion about the meaning of XCrossingEvent or the details of
a given function of gmp. But I've no problem with a discussion about cross
platform GUI API for C or about the different arbitrary precision libraries
available.

What's the difference between those two categories? In fact, is not
XCrossingEvent part of a cross platform GUI API for C?

 

[Al Balmer]

OW> Any loosening of the current topicality 'rules' (i.e. other
OW> than your groups P,N,C) will only make it harder to find and
OW> read the good posts.

...unless the topicality discussion quiets some of the trolls by
making it clear to them what the majority view is. It probably won't,
but hey, it's worth a try.

I have no problem with discussing and clarifying topicality, but if it
had any effect on trolls, they wouldn't be trolls.

 

[Alan Curry]

char filename[]="?.log";
strchr(filename, '?')[0]=MAGIC_CHARACTER;

But that still sucks.

Why not replace the strchr() line with filename[0] = MAGIC_CHARACTER?

I simplified for posting; the actual program which inspired this question
doesn't have the ? at the beginning. (And it's not even a log file.) Searching
for the placeholder '?' adds a little flexibility. It can be moved around.
Not that I'm pleased with this solution.

 

[Alan Curry]

Note that part of what I wrote, which was (rightly) snipped there, was:

....


Um, did that work for you?

Alan Curry is deliberately trying to hijack this thread. If you want
to discuss this particular C issue (which is perfectly topical for the
newsgroup), *please* start a new thread.

I guess this proves the point. The regulars are even defensive about
maintaining the purity of the meta-blathering thread of the week, protecting
it against the intrusion of content other than meta-blathering. Yes, I know.
The character/string/macro question is only marginally interesting, which is
why I threw it on this thread to see what would happen.

Since I refuse to post an article consisting only of meta-blather myself,
I'll add some more real stuff.

Maybe if the order of the definitions is turned upside down, a solution will
be easier.

#define MAGIC_CHAR_STR "x"
#define MAGIC_CHAR MAGIC_CHAR_STR[0]

This gives a pair of macros, one is a string and the other is a char, and the
string one can participate in compile-time string literal concatenation, and
only one place needs to be changed to affect them both. That's basically what
I wanted. The only down side is that MAGIC_CHAR is not technically a constant
any more, so it can't be used everywhere the original might have been used.

 

[Ben Pfaff]

char filename[]="?.log";
strchr(filename, '?')[0]=MAGIC_CHARACTER;

But that still sucks.

Why not replace the strchr() line with filename[0] = MAGIC_CHARACTER?

I simplified for posting; the actual program which inspired this question
doesn't have the ? at the beginning. (And it's not even a log file.) Searching
for the placeholder '?' adds a little flexibility. It can be moved around.
Not that I'm pleased with this solution.

#define PREFIX "/directory/"
#define SUFFIX ".log"

char filename[] = PREFIX "?" SUFFIX;
filename[sizeof PREFIX - 1] = MAGIC_CHARACTER;

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Alan Curry said:

I guess this proves the point. The regulars are even defensive about
maintaining the purity of the meta-blathering thread of the week,

Some regulars - not all. I couldn't give a toss whether you try to hijack
the thread. It has already served its purpose, and in any case the whole
point of Usenet threads is that they are - well - threaded. Several
discussions can take place in parallel. As long as you're talking C,
that's fine by me. And you are. Great!

Since I refuse to post an article consisting only of meta-blather myself,
I'll add some more real stuff.

Maybe if the order of the definitions is turned upside down, a solution
will be easier.

#define MAGIC_CHAR_STR "x"
#define MAGIC_CHAR MAGIC_CHAR_STR[0]

This gives a pair of macros, one is a string and the other is a char, and
the string one can participate in compile-time string literal
concatenation, and only one place needs to be changed to affect them
both. That's basically what I wanted. The only down side is that
MAGIC_CHAR is not technically a constant any more, so it can't be used
everywhere the original might have been used.

Lovely. Seems pretty pointless to me, but I expect you have a reason.

 

[Chris Hills]

Admittedly, Borland was big news in their time, but does anybody really
use their compilers anymore?

(Waiting for some regular to chime in and say, yes, they use it every
day... But that's not the point and you know it.)

Apparently Borland is still big for embedded x86.

Borland was able to target non windows x86 where AFAIK MS compilers
always assumed the target was running an MS OS

I know there was a "rom kit" for Borland I have a copy somewhere (if I
can find something to read the floppy

 

[Malcolm McLean]

You don't
even know anything about the routines in HIS conio.h. The initial
reaction here should be to advise the OP, and instruct him to
delete those components before reevaluating and reposting.

Let's say that he has presented an ANSI C program, but with a terminal
getch().

We all know that Windows compilers tend to run things in temporary shells
that disappear on progream termination, and that this is a fix. We should
also point out that it renders the program non-portable and is the wrong
answer to the problem.

What we shouldn't do is pretend never to have heard of the getch() function.
This is a techncially correct position which amuses some regulars, but it
irritates others. It is alright from the inside, but it can intimidate
newcomers.

 

[Malcolm McLean]

The real problem this group has, I think, is not topicality but a
disagreement about what's rude:

I agree with that. I think topicality is the occasion for the dispute, but
not the underlying reason for it.

 

[Al Balmer]

I guess this proves the point. The regulars are even defensive about
maintaining the purity of the meta-blathering thread of the week, protecting
it against the intrusion of content other than meta-blathering.

?
I don't know whether your only purpose here is political. If so,
perhaps it will make whatever point you're trying to make, but it
seems pretty silly to me.

OTOH, if you are genuinely seeking discussion of the point you raised,
it seems obvious to me that you will have better results with an
appropriate subject line. That is, after all, what subject lines are
for. Why would you wish to exclude those who have tired of the
"topicality" thread? It has nothing to do with "maintaining the
purity" of the thread, except perhaps in your own mind.

 

[Malcolm McLean]

#define MAGIC_CHAR_STR "x"
#define MAGIC_CHAR MAGIC_CHAR_STR[0]

Fine.
It is one thing for a thread to drift from concatenation to Denis Ritiche's
cat and back again to how to trap mouse movements in C, as talk naturally
does. Quite another to declare the topic of thread to be something else.

 

[Default User]

[Since my filter's off at present, I actually saw this reply, and it
seems innocuous enough, so I'll assume it was asked in good faith.]

Will wonders never cease.

Kenny McCormack said:

You can tell the continuing popularity of Borland compilers from the
number of code snippets posted here that contain calls to the clrscr
function.

I think, but I'm not sure, that some classes in India still use
(recommend?) the old Borland products, including Turbo C. It could be
that they have teaching materials set up to use the extensions from
that.

Turbo C will run on modern equipment, and is or was available free from
the Borland museum or whatever they called that.




Brian

 

[Default User]

Keith Thompson wrote:

I'm sure the judicious use of a killfile (per-user and per-thread)
would make it look much better, but I haven't chosen to use one.

Oh yeah. I know some people here can't bear to block the bozos because
they might dispense incorrect information, but I have no problem with
it. I've objected in the past about contentious debate in an otherwise
decent thread so that it's difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff.

I'd prefer more standardized messages, posted once per thread to do any
newbie alerting necessary, but that's up to the individual.




Brian