the target audience of this list

[James Hu]

Steve Summit's FAQ is more about the C language than about the
comp.lang.c newsgroup.

James Hu has been posting a "Welcome to comp.lang.c!" message that
covers what's appropriate for the newsgroup. I haven't yet read it
closely enough to evalute it; assuming it's reasonable, it might be
good for Steve's FAQ page to include a pointer to a copy of James Hu's
welcome message.

Well, it's not really *mine*. Blame Billy. I decided that it
needed to be resurrected though, to avoid this very kind of
thread... (*sigh*)

As to the original poster's question, while the C-faq does not
specifically address comp.lang.c's charter (this newsgroup was
created before newsgroup charters were required), the answer to
question 19.1 provides strong hints as to what is considered to
be on topic here.

-- James

[doh-fah-doh-so] C-faq inside! With Hyper-Threading!

 

[Kieran Simkin]

You *almost* had it right with that sentence above.

The name comp.lang.c stands for "computer language C". There is no
rational dispute about the definition of the C computer language, it
is spelled out ISO/IEC 9899, ratified by the national standards bodies
of participating countries.

The standard libraries are part of the language because they are
defined by the C language standard, and they are required to be
available to all conforming hosted implementations.

Not all of the standard library ships with many embedded compilers,
which still may be conforming free-standing implementations.

But the 'standard-ness', and therefore topicality in this group, come
from the fact that they are literally defined by the standard, not by
what compilers they ship with.

Having lurked on this group a while I'm aware that it is of course the
standard which defines what's part of the language and what's not. What I
was really trying to do in my post was explain the logic that I followed in
my mind as a newbie to arrive at the conclusion that non-standard libraries
are off-topic (before even consulting the FAQ). I should have made clear
that while this resulted in the correct conclusion, it wasn't for the
correct reason - I should also have noted the real reason as you have done
above.

Thanks for pointing this out

 

[Randy Howard]

And what does 'alloca' have to do with Unix or Linux? I write C
code for Linux systems (and Windows, and DOS, and...), and I have
no idea what 'alloca' is supposed to do. Nor do I care.

Also important in this regard, there is no guarantee that alloca() on
one compiler will do what you expect, but on the next one you port to
alloca() might be the platform-specific method for formatting the
boot file system and initializing to 0xAAFF repeating...

Since it isn't standard, it *might* do anything.

Odds are it won't happen, but there is no guarantee.

 

[Randy Howard]

you are in credibly patronising and i will not answer your loaded questions. i
hearby declare comp.lang.c as the most unfriendly newsgroup i have ever had the
misfortune to come across.

You really, really, need to check out alt.flame then.

 

[Arthur J. O'Dwyer]

No.

I am unintelligent.

You don't say.

-Arthur,
quietly fixing

 

[Dan Pop]

Perhaps the man page is incorrect (or perhaps you're misreading it).
On several systems I've just checked, alloca() is declared in
<alloca.h>. (It *can't* be declared in <stdlib.h> if the compiler is
invoked in conforming mode.)

And if you include <alloca.h> you automatically invoke undefined
behaviour.

Dan

 

[Dan Pop]

He called gcc with -ansi

This means all built-in functions will not be recognized.

Of course he doesn't find it!

In other words, he invoked gcc as a C compiler and *not* as a GNU C
compiler. He should be spanked, right? ;-)

Dan

 

[Dan Pop]

over the last few days i have posted a few questions about some non-standard C
headers/functions. from being on the list in the last few days i have noticed
that this was not the correct place to ask such questions.

Newcomers are *still* required to lurk for a few days *before* posting
for the first time. Had you done so, you wouldn't have missed the
"Welcome to c.l.c" post that explains the purpose of the newsgroup.

Don't blame others for your failure to comply to Usenet etiquette
standards.

Dan

 

[Dan Pop]

This is the view of some people in this list.

Others, like me, consider that this group is not only about ISO C.

Agreed, K&R C is still topical, as well as ANSI C and pre-ANSI C.

However, most regulars consider C89/C90 as the default context for the
questions that don't mention any C flavour. Likewise, only conforming
hosted implementations are considered is answers, by default. But there
is nothing preventing the OP from changing the default context to another
topical context, e.g. "I cannot use sprintf because my freestanding
implementation doesn't provide it".

I think that general questions about C do belong in this group even if

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

they are not mentioned in the standard ISO C document.

Indeed, as long as they are "general questions about C", as you write
about.

For instance I think that the non-standard function "alloca" is well
within the scope of this group.

Now, you're contradicting yourself: a question about alloca is NOT a
"general question about C", unless you can prove that *each and every*
conforming hosted implementation supports this function, with *identical*
semantics. And the only way to prove this is by finding the function in
the C standard...

Other people say that since it is not
in ISO C it can't be discussed here.

Plenty of things that aren't in the ISO C standard can be discussed here,
as long as they are "general questions about C". E.g. "What is wrong with
the way I use malloc? My code keeps crashing." or "When shall I prefer
malloc over VLAs?" or even "If I need an integer type that is 32-bit,
what is my best bet today?".

Note that this is an unmoderated newsgroup so that you can post
anything you want.

Including about how to improve your sex life. But keep in mind that
other people are also free to treat you as you well deserve for abusing
their favourite newsgroup.

Dan

 

[Dan Pop]

All linux compilers and windows compilers supply alloca.

Show me a way of using alloca on linux or windows without invoking
undefined behaviour!

Now, if you do not want to use it, it is your choice.
Why impose such a choice to others?

This is extremely broken logic. By refusing to use something I don't
impose my choice to anyone else. By refusing to discuss about something
I'm not imposing anyone else my choice, either.

Anyone wishing to use alloca, is free to do so. Any questions concerning
alloca, however, should be posted to an implementation-specific newsgroup,
as alloca is known to have portability problems (e.g. behaviour in case of
failure). What *exactly* is wrong with that?

If someone wants to know what are the gotchas of alloca on lcc-win32,
why should he post here and not on the lcc newsgroup?

Dan

 

[Default User]

but thats not what i was saying... i was saying "i now realise what your topic
is... but it is not obvious and it should be in the FAQ."

i never excepted the topic of this newsgroup to change.

Fair enough. The problem is that your message got somewhat garbled up
with ones from chronic malcontents like Navia who do bitch about the
restrictions.

I actually do agree with your point about the FAQ. I'd rather that was
called the C Language FAQ and that there was a separate comp.lang.c FAQ
that referenced that one for programming questions and included all the
usual topicality and structural questions typical of most newsgroup
FAQs. But I'm not in charge of that.




Brian Rodenborn

 

[Alan Balmer]

You don't say.

-Arthur,
quietly fixing

Sorry - I didn't mean to wake up ERT.

 

[E. Robert Tisdale]

Perhaps I was unclear.

It's not necessary to quote the entire article
to which you're replying.

It isn't necessary to quote any part of the article at all!
We don't want you to quote anything.
All we want you to do is to briefly *paraphrase* the points
in the original post so that we can identify the passage
to which you are responding.
We have the original post and the archives to reference
if there is any doubt about your interpretation.

 

[Keith Thompson]

[his typical nonsense]

Ok.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

All linux compilers and windows compilers supply alloca.

so what?

Now, if you do not want to use it, it is your choice.
Why impose such a choice to others?

Nobody's imposing the choice about using it. You can use MFC if you want
to.
<flamebait>Personally I think its way better than that linux dross, and as
for the so-called compilers you get for those platforms.... </flamebait>

Its discussing it in an ISO C group that rightly gets you flamed.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

He called gcc with -ansi

This means all built-in functions will not be recognized.

Of course he doesn't find it!

Which makes the point, though clearly youre either
a) too dense or
b) too obtuse
to see it. I discount (a) as patently absurd. So you must simply be too
obtuse. Hence you're trolling or otherwise trying to be a complete pain in
the derriere. Go away.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

you are in credibly patronising and i will not answer your loaded questions. i
hearby declare comp.lang.c as the most unfriendly newsgroup i have ever had the
misfortune to come across.

You've clearly not been round much. Some of the rec. groups are /way/ more
unfriendly to people who barge in and try to change the topic than CLC is.

 

[Sam Halliday]

You've clearly not been round much. Some of the rec. groups are /way/ more
unfriendly to people who barge in and try to change the topic than CLC is.

i didn't try to change the topic! read the whole thread before you reply. i said
that the FAQ should contain a description of the newsgroup's topic, so people
knew what the topic was.

 

[Emmanuel Delahaye]

<...> Hence you're trolling or otherwise trying to be a complete pain in
the derriere. Go away.

Wow! "En français dans le texte!"

 

[E. Robert Tisdale]

You've clearly not been round much.
Some of the rec. groups are /way/ more unfriendly
to people who barge in and try to change the topic than CLC is.

Two Wrongs Make A Right (Tu Quoque, You Too):

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#you_too