Advacnced C
janus
Sorry for adding noise to this group, however I am in need of an
Advanced C book. There was a time I accidently stumbled on one on the
web, it has five chapters with the last on writing web server. Could
someone give me the pointer or link to it? And I won't mind other
books.
Regards,
Janus
Antoninus Twink
> Sorry for adding noise to this group,
I wouldn't worry about that.
The signal-to-noise ratio in this group is already abysmal, thanks to
the "topicality" zealots.
> however I am in need of an Advanced C book. There was a time I
> accidently stumbled on one on the web, it has five chapters with the
> last on writing web server. Could someone give me the pointer or link
> to it? And I won't mind other books.
I expect Richard Heath Field, who has a history of spamming this group
with advertisements for his book, will be along soon to recommend it.
I'd avoid it - it contains elementary mistakes, and has shown himself to
be too proud to accept error reports.
Really, it depends what you're after. Once you've learned the basics of
C, there are a whole lot of different directions you can pursue - with C
in your pocket, the world is your oyster.
By far and away the most important thing to learn if you're going to do
serious programming is some standard basic algorithms and data
structures. Besides Knuth (which many people don't find easy to
read...), there is Corman, Rivest et al's book, which is exceptionally
clear and has quite a lot of stuff in it. It's all pseudocode, so it
would be an additional challenge to work out for yourself how to go
about implementing things in C: if you want to create a binary tree, how
should you deal with allocating the nodes? That sort of thing.
Another good book on algorithms but with more help on implementation
details is "Algorithms in C" by Sedgwick.
Alternatively, you may be interesting in using C to write a
sophisticated application that uses IPC or threading or networking or
the like. In that case, "Unix systems programming" by Robbins and
Robbins is a very good general introduction. For more hardcore
networking, there are some thick tomes by Stevens that are standard -
you mention writing a webserver, so that might be what you need.
Maybe you want to write GUI apps: in that case, you need to pick a
toolkit you like, which will probably be GTK if you're coding in C. I
don't know a good book to recommend, but there's excellent tutorial and
reference information accessible online from GTK's website.
Or you might be interested in applying C to lower-level programming at
the kernel level. "Understanding the Linux Kernel" by someone I can't
remember and "Essential Linux Device Drivers" by Venteswaran are both
readable.
Really, the possibilities are endless, and if you say what sort of thing
you're particularly interested in then people will surely have lots of
good suggestions to make.
Nick Keighley
> On 2 Dec 2009 at 7:55, janus wrote:
> > Sorry for adding noise to this group,
>
> I wouldn't worry about that.
quite right!
> The signal-to-noise ratio in this group is already abysmal, thanks to
> the "topicality" zealots.
and the people who keep arguing about it...
> > however I am in need of an Advanced C book. There was a time I
> > accidently stumbled on one on the web, it has five chapters with the
> > last on writing web server. Could someone give me the pointer or link
> > to it? And I won't mind other books.
I think you'd need to define what you by "Advanced C book". Do you
want to know more about the C language (you can't really beat K&R) or
programming in some particular domain (eg. web servers or graphics) or
some platform (Windows or Unix)?
> I expect Richard Heath Field,
that's HeathField
> who has a history of spamming this group
> with advertisements for his book,
this is not true
> will be along soon to recommend it.
> I'd avoid it - it contains elementary mistakes, and has shown himself to
> be too proud to accept error reports.
not true either. The book is pretty good and covers a wide variety of
C applications. OTOH tt is rather large and I think out of print. [I
have no financial interest in the book]
After this Twink settles down and gives some pretty good advice.
Richard Heathfield
<1a3d5398-ac56-4c11...@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Nick Keighley wrote:
> On 2 Dec, 19:19, Antoninus Twink <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
>> I expect Richard Heath Field,
>
> that's HeathField
Actually it's "Heathfield" - but he's been told many times, and he
still can't get it right. What did you expect?
>> who has a history of spamming this group
>> with advertisements for his book,
>
> this is not true
In fact, it's a lie. I have almost never mentioned it in a thread
where someone else did not mention it first and, very often, when I
have mentioned it, it has been to point out that it is *not*
appropriate for the OP's needs because what he really needs is K&R or
King or D&D.
>> will be along soon to recommend it.
>> I'd avoid it - it contains elementary mistakes, and has shown
>> himself to be too proud to accept error reports.
>
> not true either.
Well, actually it /does/ contain elementary mistakes - lots of books
do. But the second part is not true. The book's errata pages list
contains 247 errata (mostly typographical, by the way), broken down
as follows:
Errata I've raised myself: 211
Errata raised by other members of the writing team: 15
Errata raised by people not on the writing team: 21
There's a good reason why I spotted most of the errata. Before
publication, I was sent an advance copy of the book, and I went
through every single page, taking careful notes of every error I
found. Nevertheless, I realised that I couldn't possibly catch every
error, so I have been, and remain, open to error reports.
It is certainly true, however, that I pay very little attention to
idiots. And it is possible that an idiot, despite his idiocy, might
spot a genuine error that has not been spotted previously by others.
Therefore, it is possible that I might end up ignoring a genuine
error report. I have two choices - read everything posted by every
idiot, or run the (very low) risk of missing an error report. Given
that the book is now about ten years old and out of print, and given
the low probability that idiots might accidentally have something
worthwhile to say, I think the risk is worth running.
> The book is pretty good and covers a wide variety
> of C applications.
Kind of you to say so.
> OTOH tt is rather large and I think out of print.
I don't think size is necessarily a disadvantage. If I had an
electronic copy, I'd probably want to make it considerably bigger, by
including lots of stuff that we had to miss out because of space-time
considerations.
> [I have no financial interest in the book]
I suspect that the few copies that you can actually find still for
sale are probably second-hand anyway, so even if I did promote the
book here (which I don't), it wouldn't do me any financial good.
> After this Twink settles down and gives some pretty good advice.
If that's true, then let's hope it's not just a momentary lapse.
<snip>
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line vacant - apply within
Walter Banks
janus wrote:
One of the books with the most wear on my shelves is
"C a Reference Manual" by Harbison and Steele currently in
fifth edition. I have earlier editions that the pages are warn
and falling out
"C a Reference Manual"
Harbison and Steele
(c) 2002 Prentice Hall
ISBN 0-13-089592-X
This is a very readable text written by knowledgeable authors
that care about the material and should be encouraged .
ll the best of the season,
Walter..
--
Walter Banks
Byte Craft Limited
http://www.bytecraft.com
Walter Banks
errata and book description is
http://www.careferencemanual.com/
Walter..
Nick Keighley
> janus wrote:
> > Sorry for adding noise to this group,
this qualifies as signal!
> > however I am in need of an
> > Advanced C book. There was a time I accidently stumbled on one on the
> > web, it has five chapters with the last on writing web server. Could
> > someone give me the pointer or link to it? And I won't mind other
> > books.
>
> One of the books with the most wear on my shelves is
> "C a Reference Manual" by Harbison and Steele currently in
> fifth edition. I have earlier editions that the pages are warn
> and falling out
>
> "C a Reference Manual"
> Harbison and Steele
> (c) 2002 Prentice Hall
> ISBN 0-13-089592-X
>
> This is a very readable text written by knowledgeable authors
> that care about the material and should be encouraged .
ah yes. My old H&S was better for the library than K&R (IMO). I
believe the new H&S covers C99 which K&R doesn't.
I wouldn't classify it as an "advanced" book though- whatever one of
those is!
Antoninus Twink
> Nick Keighley wrote:
> Actually it's "Heathfield" - but he's been told many times, and he
> still can't get it right. What did you expect?
I will spell your name however I like if I feel it adds emphasis to what
I'm saying.
If you believe you deserve to have your named spelled correctly as a
mark of respect, then you might like to think about doing something to
start earning that respect.
>>> who has a history of spamming this group with advertisements for his
>>> book,
>>
>> this is not true
>
> In fact, it's a lie.
Wrong.
It is 100% true. Han from China dug out the quotes. Of course, you
ignored this inconvenient evidence.
In exactly the same way, when I posted a direct example of you
introducing the bible into a recent thread to refute your claim that you
don't bring religion into clc, the silence was deafening.
On the one side, there is concrete evidence - your own words in your own
posts.
On the other side, there is nothing but mud slinging and accusations of
lies.
> I have almost never mentioned it
"Almost". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_words
> in a thread where someone else did not mention it first
Exceptions, qualifications. Weasel words.
> and, very often, when I have mentioned it,
Self-justification. Weasel words.
You're on the hook and you know it. There's no way to wriggle off,
Heathfield.
> It is certainly true, however, that I pay very little attention to
> idiots. And it is possible that an idiot, despite his idiocy, might
> spot a genuine error that has not been spotted previously by others.
There are many words you could use to describe Han. "Idiot" is not one
of them.
Besides, other people read and confirmed the errors Han found. You still
ignored them, because of their original source.
In my book, that is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.
> I have two choices - read everything posted by every idiot, or run the
> (very low) risk of missing an error report.
Given that you read everything posted by spinoza, that argument hardly
carries much force, does it?
> I think the risk is worth running.
Of course you do. But then you're breathtakingly arrogant and care more
about pursuing personal vendettas than you do about technical
correctness, for all your ostentatious displays of pedantry.
> I don't think size is necessarily a disadvantage.
Indeed. The bigger it is, the longer it keeps you warm when it's used as
fuel.
Tim Streater
> On 3 Dec 2009 at 10:58, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> Nick Keighley wrote:
>> Actually it's "Heathfield" - but he's been told many times, and he
>> still can't get it right. What did you expect?
>
> I will spell your name however I like if I feel it adds emphasis to what
> I'm saying.
>
> If you believe you deserve to have your named spelled correctly as a
> mark of respect, then you might like to think about doing something to
> start earning that respect.
>
>>>> who has a history of spamming this group with advertisements for his
>>>> book,
>>>
>>> this is not true
>>
>> In fact, it's a lie.
>
> Wrong.
>
> It is 100% true. Han from China dug out the quotes. Of course, you
> ignored this inconvenient evidence.
No such person, Twinky.
--
Tim
"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted"
Bill of Rights 1689
Antoninus Twink
> On 03/12/2009 18:57, Antoninus Twink wrote:
>> It is 100% true. Han from China dug out the quotes. Of course, you
>> ignored this inconvenient evidence.
>
> No such person, Twinky.
Are you mad? Check out
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/msg/c29809cd75412536
Here's the relevant part. Let's see if Heathfield will address the
evidence this time round - but fair-minded readers will quickly make up
their minds for themselves about who exactly is the liar here.
=== begin HfC ===
I've found *some* quotes (I have no idea how complete this list is) as
evidence for my assertions. I realize Heathfield has denied the plugs in
this thread, and to be fair, we shouldn't call that lying, since these
posts were from many years ago, and nobody can be expected to remember
all the details of what he posted to a newsgroup many years ago. The
Heathfield from that time was actually a pretty likeable fellow.
Richard Heathfield
Oh dear. I can't exactly give you the Amazon link because it would be
/too/ much like spam. Suffice to say that I just checked Amazon and it
is indeed there. If you do a search for "Richard Heathfield" it finds
it
straight away. If you search using "C Unleashed" it's about five or
six
books down on the list.
Richard Heathfield:
I am reluctant to describe it in more detail here in case I lay myself
open to the accusation of posting commercial material.* You can find a
chapter list and author list at the URL I gave in my earlier reply.
That
should give you some idea of the contents and the quality (you'll
recognise almost a dozen of the names, I suspect).
[*Straw poll - do people here really object if my attempts to provide
objective information about the book accidentally sound like "buy this
book now", or am I being needlessly shy?]
Here's a "humorous smiley one" one that involves you, Mr. Bos:
Richard Bos wrote:
> If it remains at the level it has been up to now, you're being
> needlessly shy. I would object if they did sound like "buy this",
> but
> IMO, they haven't, yet. OTOH, maybe that's because IMO I need to get
> around to buying the thing already.
buy this
:-)
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
K&R Answers: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton/kandr2/index.html
Richard Heathfield:
As for the C book: presuming you've already got K&R, H&S, and CPFAQs,
I
recommend that you grab a copy of... um... rats, I had exactly the
book
for you and I've gone and forgotten the title. Sorry.
:-)
Just for fun, here's Nick Keighley, *after having posted to comp.lang.c
for roughly a year*, lending himself to marketing:
I keep hearing about a book "C Unleashed" and I believe some of the
regulars contributed to it. Is it available online, as I don't want
to pay for it?
Hope this doesn't cause offence to anyone.
And that again let Heathfield rattle on about his book in multiple
posts.
Here's a *direct* plug from yet another thread:
Richard Heathfield:
And, if I might add one to the list? :-)
C Unleashed, by Richard Heathfield, Lawrence Kirby, and (many!)
others,
including a few other comp.lang.c regulars; Sams (Macmillan Computer
Publishing), 2000. ISBN 0-672-31896-2
Not a bad book, as it turns out, (although you should be most
suspicious
of any chapters written by that Heathfield character). But not a book
for beginners.
followed by coyness and the obligatory apology:
Richard Heathfield:
<grimace> Well, I was under the impression that it was already on sale
(in the USA). This doesn't seem to be backed up by anecdotal evidence
(such as, for example, an actual purchase!). Macmillan have provided
me
with a wide range of dates, the latest of which was 18th August (i.e.
last week), and this time they sounded kinda convinced. :-)
All I can tell you for /sure/ is that I do know that at least one
paper
copy of the book exists, because it's sitting on my desk right now.
I think this is drifting off-topic now, so if you want any more info,
I
suggest that comp.lang.c might prefer it if we take the discussion to
email.
For some odd reason, there were plenty of bizarre plug openings from
strangers to the newsgroup around 2000-2001. Here's an amusing one from
someone calling himself "Peetah_junkmail":
Hi,
i tried to contact Richard Heathfield, one of the authors of C
unleashed,
through the mail provided on the web site of the book
(http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton/unleashed/), but I've been granted
with
an unexisting username from the mail server.
As this book has its origin in this group, I'm trying here .
I have bought this big book one year ago, but it's really not
compatible
with the advantage of working with a lapop. Therefore I would like to
know
if there is a way to get a pdf version, given that I am able to
provide a
proof of purchase.
Again sorry for being off topic, but as I don't want to leech on P2P
networks for illegal copies, this place is my last chance.
Thanks
Peetah
Here's another amusing opening from some fellow named "Carlo":
I really like the book "C unleashed", but it's too heavy. If it will
publish
in "light-weighted-paper" version, I will buy it.
Carlo
The flurry of bizarre questions about the book was an odd phenomenon for
a
newsgroup. Certainly I haven't witnessed anything similar on the Perl,
Python, C++, Java, or PHP newsgroups when regular contributors write a
book or a new edition of a previous book. But I see no conclusive
evidence
of a marketing stunt, and the posters appear to have had a history on
Usenet before asking for information.
=== end of HfC ===
Richard
> On 03/12/2009 18:57, Antoninus Twink wrote:
>> On 3 Dec 2009 at 10:58, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> Nick Keighley wrote:
>>> Actually it's "Heathfield" - but he's been told many times, and he
>>> still can't get it right. What did you expect?
>>
>> I will spell your name however I like if I feel it adds emphasis to what
>> I'm saying.
>>
>> If you believe you deserve to have your named spelled correctly as a
>> mark of respect, then you might like to think about doing something to
>> start earning that respect.
>>
>>>>> who has a history of spamming this group with advertisements for his
>>>>> book,
>>>>
>>>> this is not true
>>>
>>> In fact, it's a lie.
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>> It is 100% true. Han from China dug out the quotes. Of course, you
>> ignored this inconvenient evidence.
>
> No such person, Twinky.
For someone that claims they are new or "back from a long break" and
knows little about C you sure seem to have this NG history at your
finger tips Tim.
It's clear we have another Seebs here wanting to encroach on the c.l.c
Ivory Tower. Clearly Chuck's departure initiated King Richard's Heralds
to be sent to kingdoms afar in order to attract a new group jester to be
poked and mocked when times were quiet!
Bring your own bells.
--
"Avoid hyperbole at all costs, its the most destructive argument on
the planet" - Mark McIntyre in comp.lang.c
Tim Streater
> On 3 Dec 2009 at 19:05, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 03/12/2009 18:57, Antoninus Twink wrote:
>>> It is 100% true. Han from China dug out the quotes. Of course, you
>>> ignored this inconvenient evidence.
>>
>> No such person, Twinky.
>
> Are you mad? Check out
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/msg/c29809cd75412536
>
Zzzzzz zzzzz ... <yawn>
Wake us up when you have something interesting to say, Twinky.
Antoninus Twink
> On 03/12/2009 19:14, Antoninus Twink wrote:
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/msg/c29809cd75412536
>>
>> Here's the relevant part. Let's see if Heathfield will addre...zzzz zzzz
>
> Zzzzzz zzzzz ... <yawn>
If you find the evidence of Heathfield's long history of deceit and
underhand behavior in this group so tedious, why did you ask about it in
the first place?
But of course you're right - the utter monotony with which we read
Heathfield plugging his book time after time after time might easily
send you to sleep if it failed to produce the anger and frustration that
it should do, when he then comes along and says: "In fact, it's a lie. I
have almost never mentioned it".
There is only one liar here.
janus
me to have pointer/pointer function in my pocket and also support me
in my drive to writing games. Basically, I would like to have a clear
understanding of C.
Janus
Squeamizh
> On 03/12/2009 19:14, Antoninus Twink wrote:
>
> > On 3 Dec 2009 at 19:05, Tim Streater wrote:
> >> On 03/12/2009 18:57, Antoninus Twink wrote:
> >>> It is 100% true. Han from China dug out the quotes. Of course, you
> >>> ignored this inconvenient evidence.
>
> >> No such person, Twinky.
You make an assertion that flies in the face of reality here.
>
> > Are you mad? Check out
> >http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/msg/c29809cd75412536
>
> > Here's the relevant part. Let's see if Heathfield will addre...zzzz zzzz
>
> Zzzzzz zzzzz ... <yawn>
>
> Wake us up when you have something interesting to say, Twinky.
...and then you dismiss the refutation to your claim because it isn't
"interesting" enough. God damn, you're dumb.
Seebs
> I think you'd need to define what you by "Advanced C book". Do you
> want to know more about the C language (you can't really beat K&R)
I actually think that King's _C Programming: A Modern Approach_ qualifies
as beating K&R these days. Larger, more in-depth, and covers C99 features.
(But distinguishes them, which I think is a win.)
-s
--
Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet...@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
Seebs
Disclaimer: I did tech review for it. However, I don't get royalties, so
I still don't have a financial interest in the book.
Seebs
> You make an assertion that flies in the face of reality here.
Not demonstrably. No one has shown that such a person exists, as opposed
to a sock.
> ...and then you dismiss the refutation to your claim because it isn't
> "interesting" enough. God damn, you're dumb.
Actually, I think he's pretty much nailed it -- the babblings of our local
community of trolls (at least some of whom are almost certainly socks, though
it's hard to say for sure which ones) are pretty much a waste of time.
*plonk*
Tim Streater
> On 3 Dec 2009 at 19:40, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 03/12/2009 19:14, Antoninus Twink wrote:
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/msg/c29809cd75412536
>>>
>>> Here's the relevant part. Let's see if Heathfield will addre...zzzz zzzz
>>
>> Zzzzzz zzzzz ...<yawn>
>
> If you find the evidence of Heathfield's long history of deceit and
> underhand behavior in this group so tedious, why did you ask about it in
> the first place?
Why did I ask about what, O soppy one?
Antoninus Twink
> Why did I ask about what, O soppy one?
Do you have a screw loose or something? You show every sign of being in
a world of your own.
Tim Streater
Keep it coming, Sock, you're providing me with a chuckle.
Tim Streater
"As I recall", all I've asked about is who the f*** Han from China is
supposed to be. Some fathead suggested googling for him, all I got was
pages about the Han dynasty or some such. But d'ye think I really care?
However, feel free to continue to work yourself up into a froth, it's
quite amusing.
Keith Thompson
> Why did I ask about what, O soppy one?
Please stop feeding the trolls.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Tim Streater
> Tim Streater<timst...@waitrose.com> writes:
>> On 03/12/2009 19:54, Antoninus Twink wrote:
> [SNIP]
>> Why did I ask about what, O soppy one?
>
> Please stop feeding the trolls.
Sorry. It's the effect of a good bottle of Gaillac.
Antoninus Twink
> "As I recall", all I've asked about is who the f*** Han from China is
> supposed to be. Some fathead suggested googling for him, all I got was
> pages about the Han dynasty or some such.
It's not rocket science.
Eric Sosman
> On 03/12/2009 21:35, Antoninus Twink wrote:
>> On 3 Dec 2009 at 21:32, Tim Streater wrote:
>>> Why did I ask about what, O soppy one?
>>
>> Do you have a screw loose or something? You show every sign of being in
>> a world of your own.
>
> "As I recall", all I've asked about is who the f*** Han from China is
> supposed to be. Some fathead suggested googling for him, all I got was
> pages about the Han dynasty or some such. But d'ye think I really care?
>
> However, feel free to continue to work yourself up into a froth, it's
> quite amusing.
You seem easily amused by repetition.
--
Eric Sosman
eso...@ieee-dot-org.invalid
Kenny McCormack
Tim Streater <timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
...
>> ...and then you dismiss the refutation to your claim because it isn't
>> "interesting" enough. God damn, you're dumb.
>
>Keep it coming, Sock, you're providing me with a chuckle.
And vice versa.
And note that the best part of this little teleplay is when skipper Kiki
or little buddy first mate default loser Bwian comes along and inveighs
you not to "feed the trools". I see that this has already happened. It
may happen again.
Richard Heathfield
wrote:
> On 03/12/2009 18:57, Antoninus Twink wrote:
>> On 3 Dec 2009 at 10:58, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> Nick Keighley wrote:
>>> Actually it's "Heathfield" - but he's been told many times, and he
>>> still can't get it right. What did you expect?
>>
>> I will spell your name however I like if I feel it adds emphasis to
>> what I'm saying.
(Translation: he still can't get it right.)
<snip>
>>>>> who has a history of spamming this group with advertisements for
>>>>> his book,
>>>>
>>>> this is not true
>>>
>>> In fact, it's a lie.
>>
>> Wrong.
>>
>> It is 100% true. Han from China dug out the quotes. Of course, you
>> ignored this inconvenient evidence.
>
> No such person, Twinky.
He's referring to a troll from about a year back who posted a great
many rather idiotic articles to this group, who used a nom de plume
for the same reason that trolls normally use noms de plume (if I got
the French plural right, which is actually rather doubtful).
It is certainly possible that this troll produced a small number of
articles in which I mentioned the book, since I /do/ mention it from
time to time, although it is very rare for me to mention it /first/
in a thread. It does not seem to me to be unreasonable for an author
who regularly contributes to a newsgroup to chip in when a topical
book which he (partly) wrote is being discussed. That ain't spamming.
I should perhaps point out at this juncture that Antoninus Twink has
been in my killfile for a very long time now, and thus I don't
actually get to see anything he posts unless it is quoted by others.
From those occasional quotes, I note that he seems to be superglued
to the wrong end of the stick. I see no value in taking seriously
anything he says.
Nick Keighley
<snip>
> Just for fun, here's Nick Keighley, *after having posted to comp.lang.c
> for roughly a year*,
what was the date? I'm sure I'd been posting to clc for quite a while
before Unleashed came out (though memory may fail me)
> lending himself to marketing:
>
> I keep hearing about a book "C Unleashed" and I believe some of the
> regulars contributed to it. Is it available online, as I don't want
> to pay for it?
>
> Hope this doesn't cause offence to anyone.
that *sounds* like i was being tongue in cheek. I don't believe in
stealing intellectual property.
<snip>
Nick Keighley
> Thank you all. However, what I wanted is a book(s) that would enable
> me to have pointer/pointer function in my pocket
I don't understand the term "pointer/pointer function". Do you mean
pointer-to-function? This sort of basic stuff is well explained in
K&R.
> and also support me in my drive to writing games.
there are many books devoted to writing games. I've read a few but I'm
don't know enough to recomend anything. You'd need to find a game
writing ng or a platform specific ng.
> Basically, I would like to have a clear understanding of C.
K&R
Richard
Indeed. I wonder how long it will be before Tim submits his first year
tech course pascal telephone directory program as an example of how SW
should be written. Tim is like the son of Chuck.
Richard
> Tim Streater <timst...@waitrose.com> writes:
>> On 03/12/2009 19:54, Antoninus Twink wrote:
> [SNIP]
>> Why did I ask about what, O soppy one?
>
> Please stop feeding the trolls.
That's two warnings now Chuck Jr. One more and they might need to
killfile you.
Richard Heathfield
<95680373-9299-48e6...@g12g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Nick Keighley wrote:
Rule 1 when responding to troll quotes - don't believe a word of it
without a message ID. If they can't present an independent way for
you to see the article, it's because they're making up the quote. And
if they /won't/, it's because they're taking it out of context. The
above sounds to me like an example of the latter.
Tim Streater
> gaz...@shell.xmission.com (Kenny McCormack) writes:
>
>> In article<vbudnYZU8dfesoXW...@brightview.co.uk>,
>> Tim Streater<timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
>> ...
>>>> ...and then you dismiss the refutation to your claim because it isn't
>>>> "interesting" enough. God damn, you're dumb.
>>>
>>> Keep it coming, Sock, you're providing me with a chuckle.
>>
>> And vice versa.
>>
>> And note that the best part of this little teleplay is when skipper Kiki
>> or little buddy first mate default loser Bwian comes along and inveighs
>> you not to "feed the trools". I see that this has already happened. It
>> may happen again.
>
> Indeed. I wonder how long it will be before Tim submits his first year
> tech course pascal telephone directory program as an example of how SW
> should be written. Tim is like the son of Chuck.
Ha, another shining wit. I confess I have had a Pascal course - in 1975.
It was a week long course with two separate topics, Pascal and
databases. The two teachers were Prof N. Wirth and Mr C Hoare. You may
have heard of them.
Tim Streater
> In<B8Sdndwim6F1loXW...@brightview.co.uk>, Tim Streater
> wrote:
>>
>> No such person, Twinky.
>
> He's referring to a troll from about a year back who posted a great
> many rather idiotic articles to this group, who used a nom de plume
> for the same reason that trolls normally use noms de plume (if I got
> the French plural right, which is actually rather doubtful).
That would be the correct plural.
> I should perhaps point out at this juncture that Antoninus Twink has
> been in my killfile for a very long time now, and thus I don't
> actually get to see anything he posts unless it is quoted by others.
> From those occasional quotes, I note that he seems to be superglued
> to the wrong end of the stick. I see no value in taking seriously
> anything he says.
Righto. Apart from the stick, I'd say unglued describes him better.
Richard Heathfield
wrote:
<snip>
> Ha, another shining wit. I confess I have had a Pascal course - in
> 1975. It was a week long course with two separate topics, Pascal and
> databases. The two teachers were Prof N. Wirth and Mr C Hoare. You
> may have heard of them.
I have. Colin Hoare is a good friend of my uncle, and Nigel Wirth is
actually related to me - he's my second cousin's great-uncle on his
mother's side, twice removed. But I don't know why they were teaching
you Pascal and databases, since they are both specialists in food
science.
Nick Keighley
> Ha, another shining wit. I confess I have had a Pascal course - in 1975.
> It was a week long course with two separate topics, Pascal and
> databases. The two teachers were Prof N. Wirth and Mr C Hoare. You may
> have heard of them.
You are spinoza(Beautiful Mind)1024 and I claim my 5 UKP Prize!
Tim Streater
Nice try that man!
Malcolm McLean
"Richard Heathfield" <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote in message
> I have. Colin Hoare is a good friend of my uncle, and Nigel Wirth is
> actually related to me - he's my second cousin's great-uncle on his
> mother's side, twice removed. But I don't know why they were teaching
> you Pascal and databases, since they are both specialists in food
> science.
>
recently. (I'm officially a biochemist, though in reality I'm a programmer).
Food scientists will have databases of additives and possible
cross-reactions, for example.
Richard Heathfield
Whoosh!
Seebs
> You are spinoza(Beautiful Mind)1024 and I claim my 5 UKP Prize!
Not to contribute to the off-topic drift, but what is the origin of
this idiom? I'm pretty sure it's got to be UK television or radio.
Antoninus Twink
> On 2009-12-04, Nick Keighley <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> You are spinoza(Beautiful Mind)1024 and I claim my 5 UKP Prize!
>
> Not to contribute to the off-topic drift, but what is the origin of
> this idiom? I'm pretty sure it's got to be UK television or radio.
Keith Thompson
> On 2009-12-04, Nick Keighley <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> You are spinoza(Beautiful Mind)1024 and I claim my 5 UKP Prize!
>
> Not to contribute to the off-topic drift, but what is the origin of
> this idiom? I'm pretty sure it's got to be UK television or radio.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobby_Lud>
Eric Sosman
> On 2009-12-04, Nick Keighley <nick_keigh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> You are spinoza(Beautiful Mind)1024 and I claim my 5 UKP Prize!
>
> Not to contribute to the off-topic drift, but what is the origin of
> this idiom? I'm pretty sure it's got to be UK television or radio.
I made a guess and Googled for the combination of
the two phrases "you are" and "and I claim my", and was
thereby enlightened.
--
Eric Sosman
eso...@ieee-dot-org.invalid
Antoninus Twink
> I made a guess and Googled for the combination of the two phrases "you
> are" and "and I claim my", and was thereby enlightened.
Interesting, Eric!
Thanks for sharing.
I suppose a better question is: what causes a once-popular expression to
be forgotten, then a few decades later rediscovered and find currency
once again?
Perhaps there is something intrinsically attractive about the phrase or
idea, so that once a generation has passed since it became stale as a
cliche, it naturally captures the imagination of people who never knew
it the first time.
Surely there should be a word for this phenomenon, but I can't think of
one... or many other examples, come to that.
Antoninus Twink
><http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobby_Lud>
Is there an echo in here?
Nick
> On 3 Dec 2009 at 19:05, Tim Streater wrote:
>> On 03/12/2009 18:57, Antoninus Twink wrote:
>>> It is 100% true. Han from China dug out the quotes. Of course, you
>>> ignored this inconvenient evidence.
>>
>> No such person, Twinky.
>
> Are you mad? Check out
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/msg/c29809cd75412536
>
> Here's the relevant part. Let's see if Heathfield will address the
> evidence this time round - but fair-minded readers will quickly make up
> their minds for themselves about who exactly is the liar here.
>
>
> === begin HfC ===
>
> I've found *some* quotes (I have no idea how complete this list is) as
> evidence for my assertions. I realize Heathfield has denied the plugs in
> this thread, and to be fair, we shouldn't call that lying, since these
> posts were from many years ago, and nobody can be expected to remember
> all the details of what he posted to a newsgroup many years ago. The
> Heathfield from that time was actually a pretty likeable fellow.
>
> Richard Heathfield
> Oh dear. I can't exactly give you the Amazon link because it would be
> /too/ much like spam. Suffice to say that I just checked Amazon and it
> is indeed there. If you do a search for "Richard Heathfield" it finds
> it
> straight away. If you search using "C Unleashed" it's about five or
> six
> books down on the list.
I've snipped the rest, but this (to a new and niave reader) and the rest
sound like they could very well be responses to "Tell us about the book
Richard". What he was denying a couple of posts back was posting
unasked for mentions of the book.
I really don't care enough about this to go pulling the posts to see.
I'm astonished anyone does.
--
Online waterways route planner: http://canalplan.org.uk
development version: http://canalplan.eu
Nick
> On 4 Dec 2009 at 20:30, Eric Sosman wrote:
>> I made a guess and Googled for the combination of the two phrases "you
>> are" and "and I claim my", and was thereby enlightened.
>
> Interesting, Eric!
>
> Thanks for sharing.
>
> I suppose a better question is: what causes a once-popular expression to
> be forgotten, then a few decades later rediscovered and find currency
> once again?
>
> Perhaps there is something intrinsically attractive about the phrase or
> idea, so that once a generation has passed since it became stale as a
> cliche, it naturally captures the imagination of people who never knew
> it the first time.
It's been circulating very quietly in British society for a while. I
actually remember the seaside competitions from my youth, and I'm not
that ancient. It's been in active use in a number of uk. newsgroups for
a long time, as it seems particularly appropriate for that sort of
competition. It's so common that I know of at least one group where
YAMAICM5P (where 'M' is "me") is a common abbreviation, as are versions
with a name shoehorned into the middle of the alphabet soup.
Kenny McCormack
Nick <3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
...
>I've snipped the rest, but this (to a new and niave reader) and the rest
>sound like they could very well be responses to "Tell us about the book
>Richard". What he was denying a couple of posts back was posting
>unasked for mentions of the book.
In principle, you are right. However, as you will see, principle has
long been abandoned in CLC, and really has nothing to do with how we do
things here. (Aside: As you claim to be a newbie here, I'm taking a
tone of instruction here - instructing you on how we do things in CLC).
Since we deal in absolutes, the point is that Heathfield made a claim
like "I have never mentioned my book in CLC", which Han easily
disproved.
Further, note that anytime Jacob mentions his compiler, in any context,
for any reason, he gets flamed into next Thursday by Heathfield and his
gang. Fair is fair.
Finally, I don't think it is at all unlikely that Heathfield created a
sock puppet (or, equivalently, got a toadie to do it) to ask about his
book, so that he could preen about it. You are free to believe
otherwise, of course.
Rui Maciel
> I will spell your name however I like if I feel it adds emphasis to what
> I'm saying.
<snip nonsense>
For someone complaining about a signal to noise problem you seem to be very happy
posting a considerable amount of cruft to this newsgroup.
Rui Maciel
Kenny McCormack
One man's meat is another man's poison.
And vice versa.
Tim Streater
> In article<87r5r88...@temporary-address.org.uk>,
> Nick<3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
> ...
>> I've snipped the rest, but this (to a new and niave reader) and the rest
>> sound like they could very well be responses to "Tell us about the book
>> Richard". What he was denying a couple of posts back was posting
>> unasked for mentions of the book.
>
> In principle, you are right. However, as you will see, principle has
> long been abandoned in CLC, and really has nothing to do with how we do
> things here. (Aside: As you claim to be a newbie here, I'm taking a
> tone of instruction here - instructing you on how we do things in CLC).
>
> Since we deal in absolutes, the point is that Heathfield made a claim
> like "I have never mentioned my book in CLC", which Han easily
> disproved.
No such person Twinky, er, Spinny, er, Kenny, sorry, whatever your name is.
Kenny McCormack
You really are a child, aren't you? It's posts like yours that make me
realize that I'm not joking when I say that the intellectual age of the
CLC regs is about 12. I think for at least some of them, that might be
their chronological age as well.
P.S. There's no such person as Mark Twain, either. So, I suppose the
books attributed to him don't exist after all. Have I got the thrust of
your argument right?
Nick
> In article <87r5r88...@temporary-address.org.uk>,
> Nick <3-no...@temporary-address.org.uk> wrote:
> ...
>>I've snipped the rest, but this (to a new and niave reader) and the rest
>>sound like they could very well be responses to "Tell us about the book
>>Richard". What he was denying a couple of posts back was posting
>>unasked for mentions of the book.
>
> In principle, you are right. However, as you will see, principle has
> long been abandoned in CLC, and really has nothing to do with how we do
> things here. (Aside: As you claim to be a newbie here, I'm taking a
> tone of instruction here - instructing you on how we do things in CLC).
>
> Since we deal in absolutes, the point is that Heathfield made a claim
> like "I have never mentioned my book in CLC", which Han easily
> disproved.
No he didn't. He said he hadn't spammed the group with adverts for it.
I don't know whether that's an absolute or a relative, but I'm sure
you'll educate me.
> Finally, I don't think it is at all unlikely that Heathfield created a
> sock puppet (or, equivalently, got a toadie to do it) to ask about his
> book, so that he could preen about it. You are free to believe
> otherwise, of course.
As I said, I'm not going back to look, I don't care, and I'm astonished
Antoninus Twink
> For someone complaining about a signal to noise problem you seem to be
> very happy posting a considerable amount of cruft to this newsgroup.
I don't recall complaining about the signal to noise ratio. I merely
pointed out that it is very low.
Like most posters to this group, some of my contributions are helpful
technical answers (signal) and some are meta-discussions about the
general state of clc and how it could be improved (noise).
I would be surprised if my SNR was significantly worse than that of most
other posters, but unlike the likes of Heathfield and Thompson I'm at
least honest enough to acknowledge that I provide a mix of S and N, and
people are free to take it or leave it (assuming that - unlike
Heathfield and Thompson - they know how to use a killfile).
Richard Heathfield
wrote:
> On 06/12/2009 13:22, Kenny McCormack wrote:
<snip>
>> Since we deal in absolutes, the point is that Heathfield made a
>> claim like "I have never mentioned my book in CLC", which Han
>> easily disproved.
>
> No such person Twinky, er, Spinny, er, Kenny, sorry, whatever your
> name is.
Whether or not there is such a person, there was certainly never such
a claim. Kenny McCormack is wrong, as usual.
Antoninus Twink
> I've snipped the rest, but this (to a new and niave reader) and the rest
> sound like they could very well be responses to "Tell us about the book
> Richard". What he was denying a couple of posts back was posting
> unasked for mentions of the book.
Then it is unfortunate that you chose to snip before this damning quote
where he does exactly that:
Richard Heathfield:
> And, if I might add one to the list? :-)
>
> C Unleashed, by Richard Heathfield, Lawrence Kirby, and (many!)
> others, including a few other comp.lang.c regulars; Sams (Macmillan
> Computer Publishing), 2000. ISBN 0-672-31896-2
>
> Not a bad book, as it turns out, (although you should be most
> suspicious of any chapters written by that Heathfield character).
> But not a book for beginners.
Note the sickening mock coyness.
> I really don't care enough about this to go pulling the posts to see.
> I'm astonished anyone does.
That is reasonable enough, but you might change your mind if you spend
more time following this group in the future.
Imagine a fraudster who preys on old ladies, conning them into handing
over their life savings. Now it may be a lot of effort to assemble the
evidence and run this guy out of business, and if you had never been
robbed by him you might find it astonishing that anyone should care
enough to do it. But you'd have to agree that society as a whole is
better off if someone is prepared to put that effort in.
Now Heathfield may not be a criminal in the technical sense of that word
(at least, I don't have any evidence that he is), but he is certainly
someone who has done immense damage to this newsgroup over many years.
He has a strange charisma that attracts people to support him and act as
his foot-soldiers.
With this support, he:
* pushes an aggressive "topicality" agenda that seeks to restrict
discussions in this group, flying in the face of its founding charter
* conducts a nasty bullying campaign against those who try to oppose him
- principally Jacob Navia, who according to Heathfield "knows nothing
about C", even though Jacob has written a C compiler while Heathfield
has written nothing more substantial than some buggy and inefficient
solutions to a few of the exercises from K&R
* attempts to drive away new posters to preserve the "purity" of the
group on the spurious pretext that their posts are "off topic" and
could also be answered in other groups (usually the suggested groups
are completely dead and haven't had a technical post for years).
The situation is serious: until a small but growing group of refuseniks
began fighting to re-establish this group as an open forum for a frank
exchange among real-world C programmers, the activities I have described
(a process I called Heathfieldization) had made the group quite
moribund. And Heathfield is prepared to use any slur or accusation, no
matter how bare-faced, to try to shore up his position of authority in
this group. You have only to read the poison he posts about me to see
this action.
One of Heathfield's main weapons is a claim to the moral high ground. He
dismisses or ignores any evidence he is presented with, but it's
important nonetheless that someone is prepared to present that concrete,
factual evidence of his lies and deception so that fair-minded third
parties (like yourself) can make a fair judgment as to whether he is a
fit person to be allowed to decide the direction of clc.
This is a long answer, but I hope it helps gives some insight into why
people are prepared to spend time cataloging Heathfield's lies one by
one, with careful and unambiguous evidence.
Antoninus Twink
>> On 06/12/2009 13:22, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>>> Since we deal in absolutes, the point is that Heathfield made a
>>> claim like "I have never mentioned my book in CLC", which Han
>>> easily disproved.
>
> a claim. Kenny McCormack is wrong, as usual.
Heathfield, you can put your fingers in your ears and sing "la la la" as
much as you want. It doesn't change the FACTS:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/msg/f741607211eaa396
YOU mentioned your book in CLC. No one else mentioned it first. You are
a LIAR.
And if anyone believes Heathfield's lies that he is being misquoted,
they can read it for themselves.
Richard
> In <z4SdnXryHpBOSYbW...@brightview.co.uk>, Tim Streater
> wrote:
>
>> On 06/12/2009 13:22, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Since we deal in absolutes, the point is that Heathfield made a
>>> claim like "I have never mentioned my book in CLC", which Han
>>> easily disproved.
>>
>> No such person Twinky, er, Spinny, er, Kenny, sorry, whatever your
>> name is.
>
> Whether or not there is such a person, there was certainly never such
> a claim. Kenny McCormack is wrong, as usual.
Yes you did. And personally I see nothing wrong with. It's a book about
C. This is a C group. Advertise it all you like.
--
"Avoid hyperbole at all costs, its the most destructive argument on
the planet" - Mark McIntyre in comp.lang.c
Richard
> On 6 Dec 2009 at 10:46, Nick wrote:
>> I've snipped the rest, but this (to a new and niave reader) and the rest
>> sound like they could very well be responses to "Tell us about the book
>> Richard". What he was denying a couple of posts back was posting
>> unasked for mentions of the book.
>
> Then it is unfortunate that you chose to snip before this damning quote
> where he does exactly that:
>
> Richard Heathfield:
>> And, if I might add one to the list? :-)
>>
>> C Unleashed, by Richard Heathfield, Lawrence Kirby, and (many!)
>> others, including a few other comp.lang.c regulars; Sams (Macmillan
>> Computer Publishing), 2000. ISBN 0-672-31896-2
>>
>> Not a bad book, as it turns out, (although you should be most
>> suspicious of any chapters written by that Heathfield character).
>> But not a book for beginners.
>
> Note the sickening mock coyness.
It's a feature of his postings that does indeed grate.
However, it does generally seem to be a decent book despite errata - but
which book doesn't have errors?
Since it's a book about C I see nothing wrong with it being mentioned
here if the author(s) are also here to support its teachings and claims.
jacob navia
> Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> writes:
>
>> In <z4SdnXryHpBOSYbW...@brightview.co.uk>, Tim Streater
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 06/12/2009 13:22, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> Since we deal in absolutes, the point is that Heathfield made a
>>>> claim like "I have never mentioned my book in CLC", which Han
>>>> easily disproved.
>>> No such person Twinky, er, Spinny, er, Kenny, sorry, whatever your
>>> name is.
>> Whether or not there is such a person, there was certainly never such
>> a claim. Kenny McCormack is wrong, as usual.
>
> Yes you did. And personally I see nothing wrong with. It's a book about
> C. This is a C group. Advertise it all you like.
>
I can't speak about it here...
Obviously I am not against heathfield speaking about his book,
I would like to speak about my compiler without being accused of
being a shrewd business man etc etc.
jacob
Richard
> Richard a écrit :
Then do so. It would be interesting to see how you implement various
things using C.
This is NOT an Ansi/ISO C specific group.
Antoninus Twink
>> Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> writes:
>>>> On 06/12/2009 13:22, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>>>>> Since we deal in absolutes, the point is that Heathfield made a
>>>>> claim like "I have never mentioned my book in CLC", which Han
>>>>> easily disproved.
>>> a claim. Kenny McCormack is wrong, as usual.
>
> I would like to speak about my compiler without being accused of
> being a shrewd business man etc etc.
Exactly.
A message from Heathfield nine years ago promoting his book in this
group would be completely unremarkable, certainly nothing to hang, draw
and quarter him for, if it weren't for two things:
1) He accuses you of "spamming", when he has done exactly the same thing
himself. This is HYPOCRISY. (Of course, there is the obvious difference
that you distribute your compiler free for personal use, whereas
Heathfield stood to gain financially from every copy of his book.)
2) Even when faced with incontrovertible proof that he posted such a
message, he still says "there was certainly never such a claim". This is
LYING.
Once again:
Heathfield says:
"there was certainly never such a claim. Kenny McCormack is wrong, as
usual."
Google says:
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/msg/f741607211eaa396
These are two incompatible accounts. Is Google lying? Or is Heathfield
lying?
Sjouke Burry
> On 6 Dec 2009 at 20:04, jacob navia wrote:
>>> Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> writes:
>>>>> On 06/12/2009 13:22, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>>>>>> Since we deal in absolutes, the point is that Heathfield made a
>>>>>> claim like "I have never mentioned my book in CLC", which Han
>>>>>> easily disproved.
>>>> Whether or not there is such a person, there was certainly never such
>>>> a claim. Kenny McCormack is wrong, as usual.
>> Obviously I am not against heathfield speaking about his book,
>> I would like to speak about my compiler without being accused of
>> being a shrewd business man etc etc.
>
> Exactly.
>
> A message from Heathfield nine years ago promoting his book in this
> group would be completely unremarkable, certainly nothing to hang, draw
> and quarter him for, if it weren't for two things:
>
> 1) He accuses you of "spamming", when he has done exactly the same thing
> himself. This is HYPOCRISY. (Of course, there is the obvious difference
> that you distribute your compiler free for personal use, whereas
> Heathfield stood to gain financially from every copy of his book.)
>
> 2) Even when faced with incontrovertible proof that he posted such a
> message, he still says "there was certainly never such a claim". This is
> LYING.
>
> Once again:
PLONK
Sjouke Burry
> Antoninus Twink <nos...@nospam.invalid> writes:
>
>> On 6 Dec 2009 at 10:46, Nick wrote:
>>> I've snipped the rest, but this (to a new and niave reader) and the rest
>>> sound like they could very well be responses to "Tell us about the book
>>> Richard". What he was denying a couple of posts back was posting
>>> unasked for mentions of the book.
>> Then it is unfortunate that you chose to snip before this damning quote
>> where he does exactly that:
>>
>> Richard Heathfield:
>>> And, if I might add one to the list? :-)
>>>
>>> C Unleashed, by Richard Heathfield, Lawrence Kirby, and (many!)
>>> others, including a few other comp.lang.c regulars; Sams (Macmillan
>>> Computer Publishing), 2000. ISBN 0-672-31896-2
>>>
>>> Not a bad book, as it turns out, (although you should be most
>>> suspicious of any chapters written by that Heathfield character).
>>> But not a book for beginners.
>> Note the sickening mock coyness.
>
> It's a feature of his postings that does indeed grate.
>
> However,
PLONK
Nick
A couple of his posts today were half way sensible. But the
nutty-rantings-to-common-sense ratio is clearly well below 0.05.
pow(PLONK,2)
Seebs
> My compiler is about C... at least it is a C compiler, but
> I can't speak about it here...
> Obviously I am not against heathfield speaking about his book,
> I would like to speak about my compiler without being accused of
> being a shrewd business man etc etc.
There is a fuzzy boundary between discussion and spam. I have not seen a
post from you about your compiler which I thought crossed to the spam side
of that line. If you were posting big announce messages full of marketing
gibberish about your compiler in response to such events as "it's been
three days since I posted an ad", then sure, that'd be spam. If people
ask about Windows compilers and you mention yours, I don't see a problem.
You're an active participant in the group, your compiler seems to be
of potential interest, and questions of "how have particular implementations
handled this common case" strike me as of some general interest.
I'm aware that you've made a couple of posts which seemed reasonable to
me, which someone or other attacked as being like "spam". I did not share
that evaluation, myself.
Sometimes, on Usenet, you just have to ignore a few people. :)
-s
--
Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet...@seebs.net
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
Richard
What nutty rantings? Could you point them out? I see only facts above.
Richard
It's a sign of you being incredibly stupid, incredibly naive or just a
closed minded arsehole that you hide behind killfiles.
Advertising to the world who you have killfiled marks you as another
self important imbecile. You are in good company in c.l.c!
Sjouke Burry
wining regulars.
You should take another look at your behavior, it comes as
close to trolling as is possible without actually becoming so.
If you are unable to see that, get new glasses :)
Richard
Here's a hint : my comments are aimed at NOT censoring people and
bullying people. If you think wanting a healthy newsgroup discussing C
and C related issued is trolling then stick me in your ridiculous
killfile and get lost. Simple really. Your very answer to my reply about
your censorious behaviour marks you out immediately as one of the
reasons this group became so stale and uninformative. Grow a backbone
and ignore the threads you are not interested in. This group is NOT ISO
C only no matter what certain self important little twits think.
Seebs
> You should take another look at your behavior, it comes as
> close to trolling as is possible without actually becoming so.
How do you figure it's not trolling? Actual contributions nil, picking
fights and insulting people, 100%. Sounds like trolling to me...
I don't see any problem with using a killfile; describing it as "hiding"
is ridiculous. If my killfile prevented other people from seeing posts
I didn't like, then maybe it would be hiding. As is, it's just saving time,
same as filtering out spam from any other data stream.
Richard
> On 2009-12-06, Sjouke Burry <burrynu...@ppllaanneett.nnll> wrote:
>> You should take another look at your behavior, it comes as
>> close to trolling as is possible without actually becoming so.
>
> How do you figure it's not trolling? Actual contributions nil, picking
> fights and insulting people, 100%. Sounds like trolling to me...
Zero contributions? You need to open your eyes.
>
> I don't see any problem with using a killfile; describing it as "hiding"
> is ridiculous. If my killfile prevented other people from seeing posts
> I didn't like, then maybe it would be hiding. As is, it's just saving time,
> same as filtering out spam from any other data stream.
>
> -s
But being the cause rather than the solution here, you would day that.
Tim Streater
> In article<z4SdnXryHpBOSYbW...@brightview.co.uk>,
> Tim Streater<timst...@waitrose.com> wrote:
> ...
>> No such person Twinky, er, Spinny, er, Kenny, sorry, whatever your name is.
>
> You really are a child, aren't you? It's posts like yours that make me
> realize that I'm not joking when I say that the intellectual age of the
> CLC regs is about 12.
You mean you can't decide that you're not joking about something without
help from someone else?
And I'm not a CLC "reg" - as I've said before, I'm just here for the
beer. Specifically, originally it was to watch Spinny being skewered for
the fathead that he is. Now there's you and Twinky to keep the audience
rolling in the aisles.
Nick Keighley
> Richard a écrit :
>
>
>
> > Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> writes:
>
> >> In <z4SdnXryHpBOSYbWnZ2dnUVZ7rmln...@brightview.co.uk>, Tim Streater
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On 06/12/2009 13:22, Kenny McCormack wrote:
> >> <snip>
>
> >>>> Since we deal in absolutes, the point is that Heathfield made a
> >>>> claim like "I have never mentioned my book in CLC", which Han
> >>>> easily disproved.
> >>> No such person Twinky, er, Spinny, er, Kenny, sorry, whatever your
> >>> name is.
> >> Whether or not there is such a person, there was certainly never such
> >> a claim. Kenny McCormack is wrong, as usual.
>
> > Yes you did. And personally I see nothing wrong with. It's a book about
> > C. This is a C group. Advertise it all you like.
>
> My compiler is about C... at least it is a C compiler, but
> I can't speak about it here...
>
> Obviously I am not against heathfield speaking about his book,
> I would like to speak about my compiler without being accused of
> being a shrewd business man etc etc.
othr compilers get mentioned. I don't see why your's shouldn't. And
experience of implementing C seems very relevent here.
Nick Keighley
wrote:
> Richard wrote:
I don't see Richard no-name's posts even approaching spam. Spam is off
topic and repetitive. You (or I) may not agree with his views but it
isn't spam. I post via google and I see a fair amount of spam. Trust
me, richard doesn't come close to qualifying.
Richard
Flash Gordon
Jacob does not get complained at for mentioning it. It's when he states
"free" without qualification, when it is only free for personal use. If
he stated free for personal use, and his stake it in, when he replied to
others asking for compilers there would be no complaint (at least, none
from me).
--
Flash Gordon
Keith Thompson
> Nick Keighley wrote:
>> On 6 Dec, 20:04, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.org> wrote:
>>> Obviously I am not against heathfield speaking about his book,
>>> I would like to speak about my compiler without being accused of
>>> being a shrewd business man etc etc.
Apparently jacob thinks that "shrewd business man" is an insult. Not
that it matters, since I don't recall anyone making that particular
accusation against him.
>> othr compilers get mentioned. I don't see why your's shouldn't. And
>> experience of implementing C seems very relevent here.
>
> Jacob does not get complained at for mentioning it. It's when he
> states "free" without qualification, when it is only free for personal
> use. If he stated free for personal use, and his stake it in, when he
> replied to others asking for compilers there would be no complaint (at
> least, none from me).
He also tends to push his compiler's non-standard extensions.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with such extensions, but they
aren't C (unless he's advocating them as changes to the C standard,
which is perfectly appropriate, especially in comp.std.c).
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Richard Heathfield
> Richard a �crit :
>> Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> In <z4SdnXryHpBOSYbW...@brightview.co.uk>, Tim
>>> Streater wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 06/12/2009 13:22, Kenny McCormack wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>> Since we deal in absolutes, the point is that Heathfield made a
>>>>> claim like "I have never mentioned my book in CLC", which Han
>>>>> easily disproved.
>>>> No such person Twinky, er, Spinny, er, Kenny, sorry, whatever
>>>> your name is.
>>> Whether or not there is such a person, there was certainly never
>>> such a claim. Kenny McCormack is wrong, as usual.
>>
>> Yes you did.
The claim is that /I/ claimed "I have never mentioned my book in CLC".
Since I have never claimed that, the claim that I have done so is
false.
>> And personally I see nothing wrong with. It's a book
>> about C. This is a C group. Advertise it all you like.
>>
> My compiler is about C... at least it is a C compiler, but
> I can't speak about it here...
>
> Obviously I am not against heathfield speaking about his book,
I think it's appropriate for producers to discuss their products in
this group under these circumstances:
1) on first release of a product that is likely to have a certain
amount of significance in the C community (and specifically in the C
community, not just the programming community at large) - be it a
book, a compiler, a toolkit, or whatever.
2) on subsequent major releases;
3) when specific (and hopefully C-related) questions are asked about
that product, questions to which the producer is likely to be in an
excellent position to provide an authoritative answer.
> I would like to speak about my compiler without being accused of
> being a shrewd business man etc etc.
If you limit your speaking about it to when you are actually asked
about it, it would be unreasonable to accuse you of using the
newsgroup for commercial gain.
Nick Keighley
> Nick Keighley wrote:
> > On 6 Dec, 20:04, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.org> wrote:
<snip>
> >> Obviously I am not against heathfield speaking about his book,
> >> I would like to speak about my compiler without being accused of
> >> being a shrewd business man etc etc.
>
> > othr compilers get mentioned. I don't see why your's shouldn't. And
> > experience of implementing C seems very relevent here.
>
> Jacob does not get complained at for mentioning it.
he does actually. Wrongly IMO.
> It's when he states
> "free" without qualification, when it is only free for personal use.
I've picked him up on this (which he doesn't like).
janus
Could someone explain stringizing and concatenating using # and ## in
macro? And what other special stuff could be done inside macro with
arguments? I need examples.
Janus
Mark Bluemel
This would probably be better addressed as a new topic rather than
burying the question in a long, rather noisy, thread.
You could look at the FAQs. Although the normal location for them
seems to have gone AWOL, there are archives - you may find
http://web.archive.org/web/20080618001636/c-faq.com/cpp/index.html
helpful.
Ben Bacarisse
When you ask a new question, it is better to start a new thread.
> Could someone explain stringizing and concatenating using # and ## in
> macro? And what other special stuff could be done inside macro with
> arguments? I need examples.
Apart from the normal use of the parameters # and ## are all you can
do. Did you try any examples? It is not hard to come up with simple
ones.
Suppose you have 10 test functions called sort_method_0, sort_method_1
and so on along with a function time_sort that times the function
(pointer) passed to it. Your tests might look like this:
printf("Time for sort_method_0: %f.\n", time_sort(sort_method_0));
printf("Time for sort_method_1: %f.\n", time_sort(sort_method_1));
/* ... */
You can write the with macros so that the pattern can be easily
changed:
#define TEST(fn) printf("Time for sort_function_" #fn ": %f.\n",\
time_sort(F_NAME(sort_method_, fn))
#define F_NAME(prefix, suffix) prefix ## suffix
TEST(0);
TEST(1);
/* ... */
--
Ben.
Flash Gordon
> On 6 Dec, 23:14, Flash Gordon <s...@spam.causeway.com> wrote:
>> Nick Keighley wrote:
>>> On 6 Dec, 20:04, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.org> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>> Obviously I am not against heathfield speaking about his book,
>>>> I would like to speak about my compiler without being accused of
>>>> being a shrewd business man etc etc.
>>> othr compilers get mentioned. I don't see why your's shouldn't. And
>>> experience of implementing C seems very relevent here.
>> Jacob does not get complained at for mentioning it.
>
> he does actually. Wrongly IMO.
I can't remember seeing such complaints, but my memory is not perfect. I
only remember him being complained at for the sorts of reasons I
mentioned. Oh, and for talking about his extensions here, and for
pushing them.
>> It's when he states
>> "free" without qualification, when it is only free for personal use.
>
> I've picked him up on this (which he doesn't like).
Indeed.
>> If
>> he stated free for personal use, and his stake it in, when he replied to
>> others asking for compilers there would be no complaint (at least, none
>> from me).
--
Flash Gordon
Richard
> Nick Keighley wrote:
>> On 6 Dec, 23:14, Flash Gordon <s...@spam.causeway.com> wrote:
>>> Nick Keighley wrote:
>>>> On 6 Dec, 20:04, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.org> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> Obviously I am not against heathfield speaking about his book,
>>>>> I would like to speak about my compiler without being accused of
>>>>> being a shrewd business man etc etc.
>>>> othr compilers get mentioned. I don't see why your's shouldn't. And
>>>> experience of implementing C seems very relevent here.
>>> Jacob does not get complained at for mentioning it.
>>
>> he does actually. Wrongly IMO.
>
> I can't remember seeing such complaints, but my memory is not
> perfect. I
Or honest it would appear.
> only remember him being complained at for the sorts of reasons I
> mentioned. Oh, and for talking about his extensions here, and for
> pushing them.
>
>>> It's when he states
>>> "free" without qualification, when it is only free for personal use.
>>
>> I've picked him up on this (which he doesn't like).
>
> Indeed.
It is free. And he is providing it to people. What you think matters not
one iota since you contribute jack to the C community.
>
>>> If
>>> he stated free for personal use, and his stake it in, when he replied to
>>> others asking for compilers there would be no complaint (at least, none
>>> from me).
Who cars what you think? Certainly not me or anyone else in the group
from what i can gather. A free C compiler and toolset is very nice of
Jacob and is certainly on topic here.
jacob navia
> Nick Keighley wrote:
>> On 6 Dec, 23:14, Flash Gordon <s...@spam.causeway.com> wrote:
>>> Nick Keighley wrote:
>>>> On 6 Dec, 20:04, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.org> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>> Obviously I am not against heathfield speaking about his book,
>>>>> I would like to speak about my compiler without being accused of
>>>>> being a shrewd business man etc etc.
>>>> othr compilers get mentioned. I don't see why your's shouldn't. And
>>>> experience of implementing C seems very relevent here.
>>> Jacob does not get complained at for mentioning it.
>>
>> he does actually. Wrongly IMO.
>
> I can't remember seeing such complaints, but my memory is not perfect. I
> only remember him being complained at for the sorts of reasons I
> mentioned. Oh, and for talking about his extensions here, and for
> pushing them.
>
Yes, you seem to have Alzheimer disease...
Thousands of posts like this one
<quote>
Francine.Neary@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: (2007/08/31)
It's clear that people are just wasting their time and energy by
pointing out when Jacob's posts are off-topic, as he places
advertising his compiler above any consideration for other readers of
this newsgroup. (My own feeling, btw, is that he shows signs of being
mentally unstable and deserves pity not scorn.)
<end quote>
In the same thread heathfield says:
<quote>
He's been told many times that suggestions
about changes to the language belong in comp.std.c; anyone who is
incapable of absorbing and acting upon information as simple as that is
probably also incapable of coming up with a sensible proposal for
language change.
> Your comments will
> be taken more seriously after you give the group a look at the C
> implementation you wrote.
As far as this newsgroup is aware, all Mr Navia has done is to take an
existing implementation and tweak it a bit. On one occasion (IIRC), he
claimed that he has now re-written the entire thing, but it is far from
clear whether this is actually the case. Since the source code is not
available for inspection, it is difficult to check the claim. Since Mr
Navia often posts code here that doesn't even compile, let's just say
that I'm sceptical.
For the record, I take Francine's comments far more seriously than I
take Mr Navia's comments.
<end quote>
THOUSANDS OF LONG INSULT POSTS THAT HEATHFIELD AND CO NOW
"forget" where you also participated.
Richard
> Flash Gordon a écrit :
Flash is better ignored. He rarely contributes anything other than the
occasional butt kiss to the c.l.c hierarchy.
You mention your compiler all you like. Its C related. And this is a C
newsgroup.
Kenny McCormack
Richard <rgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>Flash is better ignored. He rarely contributes anything other than the
>occasional butt kiss to the c.l.c hierarchy.
In fact, Flash is certifiably insane. All you have to do to check this
claim is look at his posting history.
>You mention your compiler all you like. Its C related. And this is a C
>newsgroup.
Indeed. Quite.
Keith Thompson
>>> On 6 Dec, 23:14, Flash Gordon <s...@spam.causeway.com> wrote:
>>>> Nick Keighley wrote:
>>>>> On 6 Dec, 20:04, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>> Obviously I am not against heathfield speaking about his book,
>>>>>> I would like to speak about my compiler without being accused of
>>>>>> being a shrewd business man etc etc.
>>>>> othr compilers get mentioned. I don't see why your's shouldn't. And
>>>>> experience of implementing C seems very relevent here.
>>>> Jacob does not get complained at for mentioning it.
>>>
>>> he does actually. Wrongly IMO.
>>
>> I can't remember seeing such complaints, but my memory is not
>> perfect. I only remember him being complained at for the sorts of
>> reasons I mentioned. Oh, and for talking about his extensions here,
>> and for pushing them.
>>
>
> Yes, you seem to have Alzheimer disease...
Was that really necessary?
> Thousands of posts like this one
> <quote>
> Francine.Neary@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: (2007/08/31)
[snip]
>
> In the same thread heathfield says:
[snip]
> <end quote>
It's difficult to judge the quoted material without context. Can you
provide message-ids and/or Google Groups URLS?
I agree that some of the criticism directed again you has been
excessive. Francine Neary's post *appears* to be one such case.
> THOUSANDS OF LONG INSULT POSTS THAT HEATHFIELD AND CO NOW
> "forget" where you also participated.
Thousands? I don't think so.
(Incidentally, I thought your post today to comp.std.c, advocating
operator overloading and presenting lcc-win as an example of an
existing implementation, was perfectly appropriate, and I hope it
leads to a productive discussion.)
Antoninus Twink
> jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> writes:
>> Flash Gordon a écrit :
>>
>
> Was that really necessary?
You have to admit, Keith, that forgetfulness seems to be a big problem
among the clc regulars - like Heathfield, who "can't remember"
advertising his book here, and "can't remember" bringing his god into
threads on technical subjects.
Yes, almost uncanny how people do things and then "can't remember" them
when they get called on them...
> It's difficult to judge the quoted material without context. Can you
> provide message-ids and/or Google Groups URLS?
"He shows signs of being mentally unstable and deserves pity not scorn".
What context, exactly, do you think could make that a reasonable
comment?
Come on Keith, enlighten us.
> I agree that some of the criticism directed again you has been
> excessive.
[snip]
> (Incidentally, I thought your post today to comp.std.c, advocating
> operator overloading and presenting lcc-win as an example of an
> existing implementation, was perfectly appropriate, and I hope it
> leads to a productive discussion.)
Anyone else thinking that Thomson and Heathfield are playing good-cop
bad-cop with Jacob here? Either way, this last comment is horribly
patronizing.
Flash Gordon
> Flash Gordon a �crit :
>> Nick Keighley wrote:
>>> On 6 Dec, 23:14, Flash Gordon <s...@spam.causeway.com> wrote:
>>>> Nick Keighley wrote:
>>>>> On 6 Dec, 20:04, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>> Obviously I am not against heathfield speaking about his book,
>>>>>> I would like to speak about my compiler without being accused of
>>>>>> being a shrewd business man etc etc.
>>>>> othr compilers get mentioned. I don't see why your's shouldn't. And
>>>>> experience of implementing C seems very relevent here.
>>>> Jacob does not get complained at for mentioning it.
>>>
>>> he does actually. Wrongly IMO.
>>
>> I can't remember seeing such complaints, but my memory is not perfect.
>> I only remember him being complained at for the sorts of reasons I
>> mentioned. Oh, and for talking about his extensions here, and for
>> pushing them.
>>
>
> Yes, you seem to have Alzheimer disease...
No, and you have no cause for making such a claim.
> Thousands of posts like this one
Yet the ones you find are from over two years ago.
> <quote>
> Francine.Neary@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: (2007/08/31)
>
> It's clear that people are just wasting their time and energy by
> pointing out when Jacob's posts are off-topic, as he places
> advertising his compiler above any consideration for other readers of
> this newsgroup. (My own feeling, btw, is that he shows signs of being
> mentally unstable and deserves pity not scorn.)
> <end quote>
>
> In the same thread heathfield says:
You provide no context for this quote, no subject line, no message ID
thus making it very hard for anyone to find the context. It could easily
be in response to you making posts of the type I described, rather than
making reasonable
> <quote>
> He's been told many times that suggestions
> about changes to the language belong in comp.std.c; anyone who is
> incapable of absorbing and acting upon information as simple as that is
> probably also incapable of coming up with a sensible proposal for
> language change.
That isn't referring to whether you can or should mention your compiler
here. However, if it's the same thread it suggests that you were pushing
your extensions, which are a different matter entirely.
> > Your comments will
> > be taken more seriously after you give the group a look at the C
> > implementation you wrote.
>
> As far as this newsgroup is aware, all Mr Navia has done is to take an
> existing implementation and tweak it a bit. On one occasion (IIRC), he
> claimed that he has now re-written the entire thing, but it is far from
> clear whether this is actually the case. Since the source code is not
> available for inspection, it is difficult to check the claim. Since Mr
> Navia often posts code here that doesn't even compile, let's just say
> that I'm sceptical.
>
> For the record, I take Francine's comments far more seriously than I
> take Mr Navia's comments.
> <end quote>
Again, that is not talking about whether posting about your compiler
here is reasonable.
> THOUSANDS OF LONG INSULT POSTS THAT HEATHFIELD AND CO NOW
> "forget" where you also participated.
Now show something where people were saying you should not post about
your *compiler* (rather than its extensions) here where it is
reasonable. Not your extensions, but your compiler. Posts where you do
NOT say simply that it is free, but where you say it is free for
*personal* use, and where you acknowledge you connection to it.
When you do so provide actual message IDs, then people can actually see
what you are talking about.
I agree there are probably thousands of posts you consider to be
insulting you, since you take any criticism of anything you have done as
an insult. However, you make what you consider to be deliberate insults,
such as claiming I have alzhiemers, so you can hardly complain if
someone posts something you consider to be insulting to you.
--
Flash Gordon
Richard
> On 7 Dec 2009 at 21:12, Keith Thompson wrote:
>> jacob navia <ja...@spamsink.net> writes:
>>> Flash Gordon a écrit :
>>>> I can't remember seeing such complaints
>>>
>>> Yes, you seem to have Alzheimer disease...
>>
>> Was that really necessary?
>
> You have to admit, Keith, that forgetfulness seems to be a big problem
> among the clc regulars - like Heathfield, who "can't remember"
> advertising his book here, and "can't remember" bringing his god into
> threads on technical subjects.
>
> Yes, almost uncanny how people do things and then "can't remember" them
> when they get called on them...
Yet can remember wiping entire networks with "nasal demons" created by
"undefined behaviour" in some imaginary lab 20 odd years ago. Funny
that.
Richard
> jacob navia wrote:
>> Flash Gordon a écrit :
>>> Nick Keighley wrote:
>>>> On 6 Dec, 23:14, Flash Gordon <s...@spam.causeway.com> wrote:
>>>>> Nick Keighley wrote:
>>>>>> On 6 Dec, 20:04, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>> Obviously I am not against heathfield speaking about his book,
>>>>>>> I would like to speak about my compiler without being accused of
>>>>>>> being a shrewd business man etc etc.
>>>>>> othr compilers get mentioned. I don't see why your's shouldn't. And
>>>>>> experience of implementing C seems very relevent here.
>>>>> Jacob does not get complained at for mentioning it.
>>>>
>>>> he does actually. Wrongly IMO.
>>>
>>> I can't remember seeing such complaints, but my memory is not perfect.
>>> I only remember him being complained at for the sorts of reasons I
>>> mentioned. Oh, and for talking about his extensions here, and for
>>> pushing them.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, you seem to have Alzheimer disease...
>
> No, and you have no cause for making such a claim.
Oh here we go : the self righteous indignation routine. You calling me a
liar etc etc etc. No. He does not think you have Alzheimers. He thinks,
like I do, that you are more likely to be a liar than so incredibly
forgetful.
It is not possible with your posting history that you are unaware of the
hounding Jacob has put up with here with regard to his compiler.
>
>> Thousands of posts like this one
>
> Yet the ones you find are from over two years ago.
It has been mentioned numerous times.
>
>> <quote>
>> Francine.Neary@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: (2007/08/31)
>>
>> It's clear that people are just wasting their time and energy by
>> pointing out when Jacob's posts are off-topic, as he places
>> advertising his compiler above any consideration for other readers of
>> this newsgroup. (My own feeling, btw, is that he shows signs of being
>> mentally unstable and deserves pity not scorn.)
>> <end quote>
>>
>> In the same thread heathfield says:
>
> You provide no context for this quote, no subject line, no message ID
> thus making it very hard for anyone to find the context. It could easily
> be in response to you making posts of the type I described, rather than
> making reasonable
>
>> <quote>
>> He's been told many times that suggestions
>> about changes to the language belong in comp.std.c; anyone who is
>> incapable of absorbing and acting upon information as simple as that is
>> probably also incapable of coming up with a sensible proposal for
>> language change.
>
> That isn't referring to whether you can or should mention your compiler
> here. However, if it's the same thread it suggests that you were pushing
> your extensions, which are a different matter entirely.
Not for others. You are not the boss here.
Oh cry us a river. Your whiny "Woe is me" routine doesn't fool anyone.
Kenny McCormack
Antoninus Twink <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote much good stuff, leading
up to:
...
>> (Incidentally, I thought your post today to comp.std.c, advocating
>> operator overloading and presenting lcc-win as an example of an
>> existing implementation, was perfectly appropriate, and I hope it
>> leads to a productive discussion.)
>
>Anyone else thinking that Thomson and Heathfield are playing good-cop
>bad-cop with Jacob here? Either way, this last comment is horribly
>patronizing.
Indeed. And yet it is so well crafted that, if you didn't know better,
you might think he was being sincere. And, in his head, he might be,
showing just how totally out of touch with reality Kiki is. I think he
honestly doesn't know the meaning of the word "patronizing". It's just
completely outside his sphere of reference.
jacob navia
>
> You provide no context for this quote, no subject line, no message ID
> thus making it very hard for anyone to find the context. It could easily
> be in response to you making posts of the type I described, rather than
> making reasonable
Heathfield post:
http://www.archivum.info/comp.lang.c/2007-09/00066/Re:_Porting_C_software
Look at the thread around it...
And that was just one I took from a stupid google search...
Flash Gordon
> Flash Gordon a �crit :
>>
>> You provide no context for this quote, no subject line, no message ID
>> thus making it very hard for anyone to find the context. It could
>> easily be in response to you making posts of the type I described,
>> rather than making reasonable
>
>
> Heathfield post:
> http://www.archivum.info/comp.lang.c/2007-09/00066/Re:_Porting_C_software
>
> Look at the thread around it...
Yes, I've looked. Someone was caught out when trying to port code
written using your extensions. No one said it was inappropriate for you
to mention the Linux version of your compiler. There were definitely
negative comments about your compiler, but not about you mentioning it.
After a lot of discussion about operator overloading, Richard Heithfield
politely asked Ian to take the discussion somewhere it was topical.
Francine's comment does not seem to be appropriate in the context I can
find, but you were not complained at for initially mentioning your
compiler, you were complained at after a long thread discussion your
extensions.
> And that was just one I took from a stupid google search...
Well, as I said, there have been a lot of criticisms about things you
have written, but that is NOT the same as saying you should not mention
your compiler when appropriate.
--
Flash Gordon