Strange Question

[spibou]

How logical does it sound to modify the compiler (and all its future
versions) just to comply with a non-conforming program?

I have no idea ; it would depend on the circumstances. I could say
more but this sounds like a derail of a derail to me relative to the
OP.

Have you ever tried to alter even one line in your compiler and then
assert its correct operation?

No but I bet I could do it very easily if it was a comment line

 

[REH]

Which ones, __XXXX or EXXXX?

The former is a definite no no, the latter is less so.

The former, in an application that must be DO-178B certified.

REH

 

[Andrew Poelstra]

Similar remarks have been made to me and I must say I find them very
puzzling.

Don't do drugs.

First , do people who post here really have trouble remembering
the context of a thread which only contains 5-6 posts ? I don't see how
anyone can participate in a thread if their memory is that bad.

So bad that they can't keep track of individual messages in a 150+ message/
day newsgroup? I'd hate to have /that/ terrible a memory.

Second , is it so hard for people to obtain a newsreader which can
display all the
messages of a thread together and make it easy to switch back and
forth between messages ? Pine can do that , is available for a large
variety of platforms and free. I'm sure emacs can as well. I'm sure the
same applies to many other newsreaders.

So, I should switch my newsreader to cater to ignorant people like you?

Third , if it is so hard why not access the group through Google ? Or
is
that considered sacrilegious ?

Uh, because that means exiting slrn, going to lynx, navigating to Google,
finding the thread, scrolling down, scrolling up, exiting lynx, going
back into slrn, going back to the thread, reading it again, and replying.

Whereas if you quoted context I would have to hit ESC-up a few times.

Quoting context when the context is obvious is distracting and wastes
the reader's time.

Because spending five minutes to get to Google is fine, as long as I don't
waste a precious five seconds scrolling up to read quoted context.

 

[Andrew Poelstra]

But in order to realize that _you_could_have_skipped_them_
you need to read them first. If it turns out that you didn't need
to read them then you have wasted your time. Furthermore if
you are replying to a long post and you need to concentrate on
specific parts to comment on it makes it harder to locate those
parts on repeated readings if there is additional stuff.

You berate us on not keeping tabs on and memorizing hundreds of messages
per day, and yet you can't scan through a message to find what you need?
Someone of your intellect must be able to use ESP for such a task, no?

 

[Malcolm]

--

OK, I was at a code review today and got asked a strange questions (at
least I thought it was). I pointed out that the naming convention they
were using for macros clashed with one of the reserved forms for
identifies in the standard. After some shock and disbelief, the lead
of the project agreed to change to convention. One of the engineers
piped up and asked, "Do we really want to accept the standard?" I
didn't know how to answer other than response, "If you are writing C
code, why would you not?"

The standard fobids use of the identifiers "isosceles" or "today" or
"strength", because the prefixes are reserved for macros.
Personally I consider this unacceptable and simply ignore it. The ANSI
committee has failed to get its standard accepted, anyway, which means that
the era of ISO - ANSI C is drawing to a close. The langauge will develop in
other directions.

Buy my book 12 Common Atheist Arguments (refuted)
$1.25 download or $7.20 paper, available www.lulu.com/bgy1mm

 

[CBFalconer]

The standard fobids use of the identifiers "isosceles" or "today"
or "strength", because the prefixes are reserved for macros.
Personally I consider this unacceptable and simply ignore it. The
ANSI committee has failed to get its standard accepted, anyway,
which means that the era of ISO - ANSI C is drawing to a close.
The langauge will develop in other directions.

You poor maltreated thing. Imagine being forced to conjure up
other descriptive names for those variables, just to avoid conflict
with system identifiers. Why don't you just precede them all with
a '_' to make sure? Be sure to reuse stdin and stdout for some
sort of floating point variables. It would be best to make those
definitions 'global'.

--
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.
They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country
and our people, and neither do we." -- G. W. Bush.
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism
and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country." --Hermann Goering.

 

[Flash Gordon]

You rewrite the programme or you modify the compiler (if you have the
source) or you don't use it at all.

Sorry boss, I'm going to have to spend 5 man-years rewriting this
program for the customer who needs it on a new system. Hmm. Don't think
that will work. Nor would it have worked when I had a requirement to
demonstrate some code I was working on for an embedded system by
embedding it in another application on a Silicon Graphic workstation,
since I was *required* to use the same code, source was not available
for the compiler (and validating changes would be a problem) and the
requirement was not there at the start of the project. Fortunately, even
though I did not know C well back then I had kept pretty much to
standard C (I can think of two exceptions) it worked.

I don't doubt that there are good reasons for following the standard.
You asked
for a reason for *not* following the standard which I provided.

I didn't, and engineer where REH works did. Also, I don't consider,
"because the compiler supports some very useful extensions" to be a good
reason. "Because it can't be done in standard C" is a good reason, but
such code can generally be kept isolated so there is still no good
reason for the bulk of the code to not be standard C.
--
Flash Gordon, living in interesting times.
Web site - http://home.flash-gordon.me.uk/
comp.lang.c posting guidelines and intro:
http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/Intro_to_clc

Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php

 

[Richard Bos]

Similar remarks have been made to me and I must say I find them very
puzzling.

First , do people who post here really have trouble remembering
the context of a thread which only contains 5-6 posts ?

One, no. Hundreds, yes.

Second , is it so hard for people to obtain a newsreader which can
display all the
messages of a thread together and make it easy to switch back and
forth between messages ?

No, but it's still exceedingly awkward to have to do so.

Third , if it is so hard why not access the group through Google ? Or
is that considered sacrilegious ?

No, it's considered a pain in the arse, and an impossibility when doing
off-line newsreading.

Quoting context when the context is obvious is distracting and wastes
the reader's time.

Bollocks. It is not only a simple courtesy to people who read news in
circumstances you apparently cannot conceive of, it is also a
long-standing convention on Usenet.

**** it, I'm sick and tired of Google Groups users telling us that the
way we do things on Usenet is wrong. Half-blogger half-yahoo johnny-
come-latelies...

This is how we do things on Usenet. We quote. We've done so for decades.
If that is too much for you Web 2.0-ified Googlites to accept, **** off
to Google Chat - or behave.

Richard

 

[CBFalconer]

Because I don't know enough about how usenet works no doubt. Where
could I find out more about how the data flows on usenet ie how the
information travells from the moment one writes a message on one's
computer either using a newsreader or Google until it finds its way
into other people's computers ?

Look up the appropriate rfcs.

--
"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we.
They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country
and our people, and neither do we." -- G. W. Bush.
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of the
leaders. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism
and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country." --Hermann Goering.

 

[Jordan Abel]

Look up the appropriate rfcs.

A lot of stuff like the actual structure of the usenet network, etc, is
more up to convention than standards, isn't it?

 

[Kenneth Brody]

A lot of stuff like the actual structure of the usenet network, etc, is
more up to convention than standards, isn't it?

Just remember that, in the world of NNTP, it's possible that a trip
from A to B to C is shorter than a trip from A to C. (ie: the post
from system A arrives at B, and the reply from B arrives at C, before
the original post arrives at C via some other route.)

It's also possible for system X to send several TCP/IP packets to system
Y, and have them arrive in a different order from the one in which they
were sent.

Of course, TCP/IP, Usenet, NNTP, and even networking in general, is OT
to clc.

Consider this a case of:

HandleUsenetMessage(GetOriginalMessage(),GetReplyMessage());

There is no guarantee on the order of the calls to GetOriginalMessage()
and GetReplyMessage().

--
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
| Kenneth J. Brody | www.hvcomputer.com | #include |
| kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com | <std_disclaimer.h> |
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
Don't e-mail me at: <mailto:[email protected]>

 

[Peter Shaggy Haywood]

Groovy hepcat (e-mail address removed) was jivin' on 7 Jun 2006 14:22:03 -0700
in comp.lang.c.
Re: Strange Question's a cool scene! Dig it!

But in order to realize that _you_could_have_skipped_them_
you need to read them first.

You merely need to skim them or read a line or two to determine
whether or not you've seen those parts before. And that's *if* you
remember the original post. If you don't, then the quoted text is
essential for understanding.

If it turns out that you didn't need
to read them then you have wasted your time. Furthermore if
you are replying to a long post and you need to concentrate on
specific parts to comment on it makes it harder to locate those
parts on repeated readings if there is additional stuff.

Piffle! Honestly, Spiros! If you can't handle a little reading then
maybe Usenet is no place for you.

--

Dig the even newer still, yet more improved, sig!

http://alphalink.com.au/~phaywood/
"Ain't I'm a dog?" - Ronny Self, Ain't I'm a Dog, written by G. Sherry & W. Walker.
I know it's not "technically correct" English; but since when was rock & roll "technically correct"?

 

[spibou]

Look up the appropriate rfcs.

I was hoping for something that would give me an overview rather than
read
rfcs. In any case what are the relevant rfcs ?

Spiros Bousbouras