Re: In the matter of Herb Schildt
Clive D.W. Feather
>>>>> Not all of us have the patience of a Schildt who has been silent
>>>>> online about his treatment.
[...]
>> I don't believe he cares one whit or jot about Peter's page or mine.
>> He's probably laughing all the way to the bank.
>
> That might make you feel good, but according to my sources, it is
> untrue. You and your friend Seebach maligned him at a level actionable
> especially in British libel law.
Bwa-ha-ha-ha.
(1) There's no such thing as "British libel law".
(2) I probably know far more about the topic of libel than you do. See (3).
(3) One of the most experienced and best-known QCs at the libel Bar has my
personal mobile number in his phone and calls me for advice on Internet
libel cases. He thinks you're talking total and utter twaddle.
(4) If it ever came to court [pauses to stop rolling around the floor
laughing] I'd just call Dennis Ritchie [deliberate name-drop, far better
than this Nash person you rely on]: he's said that I know C better than
him.
> But while you're here, I need from you a statement of your educational
> qualifications in computer science. Thank you.
No, you don't.
You *want* a statement of my educational qualifications. You don't need
them. I suspect you either want to poke fun at them, or to write to the
establishment in question and try to cause trouble, or something else like
that.
If you were collegiate, polite, and wrote relevantly over a sustained
period of time I might consider answering. But while you're uncollegiate,
rude, and post full of irrelevant crap I'm not going to. [And one or two
polite posts aren't going to be enough to change my mind.]
If you're desperate to find out, do what any decent collegiate academic
would do and research it for yourself. The answer is out there if you look.
--
Clive D.W. Feather | If you lie to the compiler,
Email: cl...@davros.org | it will get its revenge.
Web: http://www.davros.org | - Henry Spencer
--
comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: cl...@plethora.net -- you must
have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen,
or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
Seebs
> [Hmm; I go away for a few days and he's still at it.]
You've missed much of the fun.
> If you're desperate to find out, do what any decent collegiate academic
> would do and research it for yourself. The answer is out there if you look.
You know, the more I think about it, the funnier this has the potential
to be.
Consider: Imagine that he were to research your qualifications. And
imagine that he brought the same obsessiveness, accuacy, care, and
attention to detail to this task that he brought to his study of C
and his writing about various documents critical of Schildt's writings.
I really can't see a way this can fail to be comedy gold. I imagine
that, even now, he's carefully reviewing some teenager's Harry Potter
fan site to see whether perhaps you studied at Hogwarts. Later, he'll
reveal that, as the creator of the Daleks, you are a threat to liberty
and humanity, and make fun of you about the whole "stairs" thing.
-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!
spinoza1111
> [Hmm; I go away for a few days and he's still at it.]
>
>
>
> >>>>> Not all of us have the patience of a Schildt who has been silent
> >>>>> online about his treatment.
> [...]
> >> I don't believe he cares one whit or jot about Peter's page or mine.
> >> He's probably laughing all the way to the bank.
>
> > That might make you feel good, but according to my sources, it is
> > untrue. You and your friend Seebach maligned him at a level actionable
> > especially in British libel law.
>
> Bwa-ha-ha-ha.
>
> (1) There's no such thing as "British libel law".
Wow. Izzat so? I teach British constitutional law based on "AV Dicey's
Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution", and Ian
Loveland's "Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Human Rights",
and of course, Britain is known for its libel law, which is used world-
wide owing to its severity and entrenchment.
Your statement ranks in stupidity with Seebach's gem ("the 'heap' is a
DOS term") and in addition it has the usually cowardly negation in
which you hope to prevent critique and stop thought by issuing a
paradoxical negative, for the same reason that the C Standard likes
things "undefined" even when for specific compilers they are not.
>
> (2) I probably know far more about the topic of libel than you do. See (3).
>
> (3) One of the most experienced and best-known QCs at the libel Bar has my
> personal mobile number in his phone and calls me for advice on Internet
> libel cases. He thinks you're talking total and utter twaddle.
If there is no such thing as British libel law, there's no such thing
as a libel bar, and your Queen's Counsel friend is a peri-wigg'd
fraud. I have communicated from time to time with Geoffrey Robertson
since he liked my review of his 1999 book Crimes Against Humanity but
I don't bother him with silly questions.
>
> (4) If it ever came to court [pauses to stop rolling around the floor
> laughing] I'd just call Dennis Ritchie [deliberate name-drop, far better
> than this Nash person you rely on]: he's said that I know C better than
> him.
How would he know? Your logic is exactly wrong. Someone who KNOWS MORE
THAN YOU must certify your knowledge. Indeed, that's what education is
all about except in this topsy-turvy world where the people with the
biggest mouths "know more".
Since you have nothing but contempt for most of your fathers, you
demand certification from people who claim to know less than you, but
this is logically impossible. Seebach was too cowardly to go for a
Master's in CS since he was afraid that his self-diagnosed "learning
disorder" would sabotage him, but claims to judge people on the use of
terms which are in fact common in CS education.
The Father is expected to certify the false knowledge of the Horde of
sons lest he be killed in this crazy world, and the result is that
most software is garbage.
>
> > But while you're here, I need from you a statement of your educational
> > qualifications in computer science. Thank you.
>
> No, you don't.
>
> You *want* a statement of my educational qualifications. You don't need
> them. I suspect you either want to poke fun at them, or to write to the
> establishment in question and try to cause trouble, or something else like
> that.
Perhaps. I graduated from Roosevelt University in 1973. It is a fifth-
rate educational institution but a member of its math faculty offered
its first computer science class ever in 1970, which I took. I got a
B. I then attended DePaul's MSCS program for three years, not
completing all the requirements, but taking a significant number of
classes (seven if memory serves) with straight As save in compiler
development, where I got a B. At the time, of course, I also did a
considerable amount of self-study and was publishing on programming by
1976.
Whereas Seebach has told us that he hasn't taken ANY computer science
classes whatsoever. I concede that one can be a qualified practitioner
by self study. But what constitutes libel under British and American
law is to make absurd, and demonstrably false statements, such as "the
'heap' is a DOS term" with malicious intent to defame a person who has
far more certification than thee.
>
> If you were collegiate, polite, and wrote relevantly over a sustained
> period of time I might consider answering. But while you're uncollegiate,
> rude, and post full of irrelevant crap I'm not going to. [And one or two
> polite posts aren't going to be enough to change my mind.]
I am quite polite to the extent I am reciprocated but "this animal is
dangerous: it defends itself when attacked".
>
> If you're desperate to find out, do what any decent collegiate academic
> would do and research it for yourself. The answer is out there if you look.
Here's an example of your irresponsibility, Clive:
Schildt:
## In other words, one copy of a library function in memory may
## not be used by two or more currently executing programs.
Clive:
"This is blatant nonsense - on most Unix systems, if the same program
is executing several times, all the code is shared by both processes.
Indeed, many go further and share one copy of the standard C library
among every process on the system.
What this section of the standard is talking about is re-entrancy.
The functions in the library are not re-entrant, and so may not be
called from within themselves."
You completely confuse the issue. The fact that "library functions are
not re-entrant" implies the weaker fact that "library functions are
not recursive and may not call themselves directly or indirectly".
Most C programmers know that you cannot (or should not) malloc inside
a malloc error handler for this reason.
The unix practise (it's spelled unix) is no more part of your C
standard than is the stack (although in an extensive discussion last
month, nobody was able to think of a way to replace the stack). Herb
is in fact saying clearly what you are not able to: that concurrent
(multitask or recursive) use of a library program is unsafe.
He does not mention, nor do you, that this is a legacy fact that you
should have addressed in "standardizing" C but were too cowardly to
address. Nor is it mentioned that this facts makes many library
functions candidates for rewriting.
It's more convenient for you to bully Herb than speak truth to vendor
power.
Here's more of your nonsense:
Herb: ## A compound statement is a block of code.
You: "A nice sounding statement, but totally meaningless. A compound
statement is a block of code beginning with { and ending with the
matching }. For example, the body of a function is a compound
statement."
You're wrong and you end with a stunning error of your own. The word
"block" has referred to a clump of code surrounded by curly braces in
C or the "fat parentheses" begin and end in Pascal and Algol for fifty
years. In fact, it's not a "block" until it is so delimited: an
ungrouped set of statements is just an ungrouped set of statements,
and cannot be used in an if statement, for statement, or while without
the first statement (only) being controlled.
But the really stunning error is "for example, the body of a function
is a compound statement". That is PRECISELY wrong. The syntax of a
function declaration is separate from the syntax of if, for, and
while, each of which control a "statement", which can be either a
simple statement, or a block.
Writing this shows in fact you're incompetent, and have had no
experience, as Herb and I have had, in developing either a parser or a
compiler. It is fine for you to program, and to bullshit about
programming online. What's not fine is for you, with no expert
standing, to maliciously attack a person's reputation and livelihood,
the reputation and livelihood of each of Herb's editors and technical
reviewers at McGraw-Hill, and that of anyone who disagrees with you.
It is civil and criminal libel.
## * Block scope begins with the opening { of a block and ends with
## its associated closing }.
"This is not true: while the scopes end as described, they begin, for
each identifier, at the end of its "declarator" (that is, at the
comma, equals sign, or semicolon after it is declared). This is
particularly important for identifiers with block scope."
If i is declared at the beginning of a block (as it must be in certain
dialects of the ill-defined mess C) then it's moot whether you say its
scope starts at the beginning of the block or at its definition.
Common sense tells us not to use the variable above its declaration.
Here, you are just showing off.
Your critique is mostly nits, matters of interpretation, and Microsoft
hatred. It is criminal and civil libel and if I were Herb, I'd of old
have sued you for libel. If I were your father, I'd kick your ass.
spinoza1111
> On 2009-11-06, Clive D.W. Feather <cl...@davros.org> wrote:
>
> > [Hmm; I go away for a few days and he's still at it.]
>
> You've missed much of the fun.
>
> > If you're desperate to find out, do what any decent collegiate academic
> > would do and research it for yourself. The answer is out there if you look.
>
> You know, the more I think about it, the funnier this has the potential
> to be.
>
> Consider: Imagine that he were to research your qualifications. And
> imagine that he brought the same obsessiveness, accuacy, care, and
> attention to detail to this task that he brought to his study of C
> and his writing about various documents critical of Schildt's writings.
>
> I really can't see a way this can fail to be comedy gold. I imagine
> that, even now, he's carefully reviewing some teenager's Harry Potter
> fan site to see whether perhaps you studied at Hogwarts. Later, he'll
> reveal that, as the creator of the Daleks, you are a threat to liberty
> and humanity, and make fun of you about the whole "stairs" thing.
Your care was on display as a moderator when you allowed a post that
accidentally involved Seibel. Why is it OK for you to pretend to be a
newsgroup moderator? You're not competent at the job.
I believe that you, without adequate educational qualifications, are
trying to make a career in two ways
(1) You volunteer for jobs at which you're not competent.
(2) You destroy careers of competent people.
For example, you appear to have volunteered to "serve" on the ISO
standards effort strictly in order to appear to be an expert, in
preference to returning to graduate school to actually learn comp
science. Had you done so, you would not have written, in "C: The
Complete Nonsense" this howler: "the 'heap' is a DOS term".
You are the Sarah Palin of this newsgroup, because you claim
competence in roughly the same way she did when she claimed competence
in foreign policy based on Alaska being next to Russia. You take jobs
for personal advancement but act in them as irresponsibly as she acted
when she quit her job as governor to work on her personal advancement,
and, while governor, ruined the careers of her opponents.
Herb knew that you need SOME sort of linked list "heap" and SOME sort
of LIFO data structure to implement a language with recursive
procedures because he, unlike you, has written a small implementation
of C and has, unlike you, completed the BS and MSCS in computer
science. He knows there's no such thing as truly undefined behavior
unless you are closet programmer in the sense of somebody who
speculates idly about code and who trashes real programmers.
>
> -s
> --
> Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@seebs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
> --
> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must
Dennis (Icarus)
news:clcm-2009...@plethora.net...<snip>
>
> Your care was on display as a moderator when you allowed a post that
> accidentally involved Seibel. Why is it OK for you to pretend to be a
> newsgroup moderator? You're not competent at the job.
>
Why did you make the error in the first place?
It is your responsibility to review and edit your posts prior to sending.
Dennis
Keith Thompson
[...]
> But the really stunning error is "for example, the body of a function
> is a compound statement". That is PRECISELY wrong. The syntax of a
> function declaration is separate from the syntax of if, for, and
> while, each of which control a "statement", which can be either a
> simple statement, or a block.
Wrong again.
The grammar for a function definition is in C99 6.9.1p1:
function-definition:
declaration-specifiers declarator declaration-list[opt]
compound-statement
(That should be 2 lines rather than 3.)
Oh, and you also managed to confuse function definitions with
function declarations.
> Writing this shows in fact you're incompetent, and have had no
> experience, as Herb and I have had, in developing either a parser or a
> compiler. It is fine for you to program, and to bullshit about
> programming online. What's not fine is for you, with no expert
> standing, to maliciously attack a person's reputation and livelihood,
> the reputation and livelihood of each of Herb's editors and technical
> reviewers at McGraw-Hill, and that of anyone who disagrees with you.
>
> It is civil and criminal libel.
Hahahahahahahaha!
--
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"
Seebs
> Why did you make the error in the first place?
> It is your responsibility to review and edit your posts prior to sending.
And again, I have no idea how I should have guessed that it was an
error. There is such a person as Peter Siebel, he's an Apress author,
he was an English major... Even if I thought it WERE my job to determine
whether people were posting sense, I can't imagine how I was supposed to
realize that Spinoza had not only the name wrong, but other attributes
as well, such that by amazing coincidence he used a name which matched the
other attributes he picked.
And frankly, really, if I were in the business of rejecting posts for
containing obvious errors, we'd never have heard of Spinoza.
FWIW, I don't plan to stop posting his perhaps-maybe-topical rants, but
I don't expect anyone to refrain from killfiling him. I know I have; he
was funny briefly and has since ceased to amuse. When I want comparably
qualified opinions on Schildt's writing, I'll ask my cat.
-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!
spinoza1111
> spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> > But the really stunning error is "for example, the body of a function
> > is a compound statement". That is PRECISELY wrong. The syntax of a
> > function declaration is separate from the syntax of if, for, and
> > while, each of which control a "statement", which can be either a
> > simple statement, or a block.
>
> Wrong again.
>
> The grammar for a function definition is in C99 6.9.1p1:
>
> function-definition:
> declaration-specifiers declarator declaration-list[opt]
> compound-statement
>
> (That should be 2 lines rather than 3.)
>
> Oh, and you also managed to confuse function definitions with
> function declarations.
I use declaration and definition interchangeably because the two
concepts are incorrectly separated in C. The body of the function
"definition" is not a statement in any meaningful sense. Therefore it
should not be called a "compound statement". It should be called a
block.
The problem here is that the out of date grammar and semantics of C
structure your thought. But, a grammar is not science. It's just a
taxonomy, a "terminology" which here blinds you to the fact that it's
a pure accident that compound statements and the bodies of function
definitions/declarations have identical syntax.
You lack experience outside of C which causes you to think of
artifacts such as sequence points are real science when in fact they
have roughly the same status as astrology. But you also never have
implemented C, which also causes you to treat an artifact as natural.
>
> > Writing this shows in fact you're incompetent, and have had no
> > experience, as Herb and I have had, in developing either a parser or a
> > compiler. It is fine for you to program, and to bullshit about
> > programming online. What's not fine is for you, with no expert
> > standing, to maliciously attack a person's reputation and livelihood,
> > the reputation and livelihood of each of Herb's editors and technical
> > reviewers at McGraw-Hill, and that of anyone who disagrees with you.
>
> > It is civil and criminal libel.
>
> Hahahahahahahaha!
Hmm, I thought you were ignoring me, Kiki.
>
> --
> 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"
> --
> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must
spinoza1111
> On 2009-12-22, Dennis (Icarus) <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Why did you make the error in the first place?
> > It is your responsibility to review and edit your posts prior to sending.
>
> And again, I have no idea how I should have guessed that it was an
> error. There is such a person as Peter Siebel, he's an Apress author,
> he was an English major... Even if I thought it WERE my job to determine
> whether people were posting sense, I can't imagine how I was supposed to
> realize that Spinoza had not only the name wrong, but other attributes
> as well, such that by amazing coincidence he used a name which matched the
> other attributes he picked.
It was pretty obvious. The inattention was yours, and I believe you
took the job as moderator to appear to be more qualified than you
actually are.
>
> And frankly, really, if I were in the business of rejecting posts for
> containing obvious errors, we'd never have heard of Spinoza.
Gee, what part of comp.lang.c [unmoderated} don't you understand?
>
> FWIW, I don't plan to stop posting his perhaps-maybe-topical rants, but
> I don't expect anyone to refrain from killfiling him. I know I have; he
> was funny briefly and has since ceased to amuse. When I want comparably
> qualified opinions on Schildt's writing, I'll ask my cat.
>
> -s
> --
> Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@seebs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
> --
> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must
spinoza1111
wrote:
> "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:clcm-2009...@plethora.net...
>
> > On Nov 7, 12:56 am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> <snip>
>
> > Your care was on display as a moderator when you allowed a post that
> > accidentally involved Seibel. Why is it OK for you to pretend to be a
> > newsgroup moderator? You're not competent at the job.
>
> Why did you make the error in the first place?
> It is your responsibility to review and edit your posts prior to sending.
Oooooohhhh....personal Responsibility. Yes, of course. It's also the
responsibility of the "moderator" of a "moderated" group to "moderate"
the "group": cf. comp.risks for an example of proper moderation. Peter
Neumann, when sent something questionable, has the personal courage
and maturity to in all cases use email to communicate about posts with
errors, but Seebach, who took the job as moderator (as far as I can
tell) to appear to be more qualified than he is, is afraid to do this.
In real publication, fact checkers and editors catch the inevitable
confusions and errors that creep in. The poster to a moderated group
has the right to expect this of the moderator.
I believe Seebach saw the error and posted the submission anyway as a
stunt. I could have made the error deliberately to show his
incompetence as a stunt as well. But such stunts are a waste of time
and render these groups useless for their intended purpose.
The matter at hand is whether Seebach and Feather libeled Schildt
while making the same type of errors they accuse Schildt of making,
and "the 'heap' is a DOS term" demonstrates this to be the case.
>
> Dennis
>
> .
> --
> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must
spinoza1111
> On 2009-12-22, Dennis (Icarus) <nojunkm...@ever.invalid> wrote:
>
> > Why did you make the error in the first place?
> > It is your responsibility to review and edit your posts prior to sending.
>
> And again, I have no idea how I should have guessed that it was an
> error. There is such a person as Peter Siebel, he's an Apress author,
> he was an English major... Even if I thought it WERE my job to determine
> whether people were posting sense, I can't imagine how I was supposed to
> realize that Spinoza had not only the name wrong, but other attributes
> as well, such that by amazing coincidence he used a name which matched the
> other attributes he picked.
>
> And frankly, really, if I were in the business of rejecting posts for
> containing obvious errors, we'd never have heard of Spinoza.
>
> FWIW, I don't plan to stop posting his perhaps-maybe-topical rants, but
> I don't expect anyone to refrain from killfiling him. I know I have; he
> was funny briefly and has since ceased to amuse. When I want comparably
> qualified opinions on Schildt's writing, I'll ask my cat.
>
> -s
> --
> --
> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must
> have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen,
> or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
Peter, you seem to have very little real-world business experience,
because if you'd had such experience, you'd have learned to "never
knock the competition". I think you make Apress look bad with your
Schildt post, since, as I have said, the post has gone viral and is
the single source of all rumors about Schildt, because (as I have
said) Internet users confuse duplicate information with new
information.
I know you're not speaking as an Apress author in the Schildt post,
since you posted it before your publication, but that's how it
appears.
As it happened, Schildt wrote a book that for all of its flaws, actual
C programmers (mostly Microsoft) were able to use to do their jobs.
Had the book not been useful, the free market would have rejected it.
It would have had Richard's sales for C Unleashed.
When I was actively working with Apress (back in 2004), it seemed to
me that they had a great deal of gracious tolerance of a variety of
authorial voices. One author thanked his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ
in the preface.
However, I have learned since that time that because the norm for
people today is so very dysfunctional, there are some "authorial
voices" that should be silenced. NOT authors who make "mistakes", real
or imagined (especially not usenet posters who make mistakes and then
almost immediately post corrections). No, authors who
(1) Demonize other writers, allowing a single document to go viral
(2) Refuse as editors and moderators to get in touch with them to
clear things up, as in your cases where you refused to work with
McGraw Hill without being paid a probably unconscionable sum or where
you "moderate" without using email to fact-check and to edit
Perhaps had you been an English major like friend Seebach, or just a
truly cultivated person, you would have realized that there are
multiple ways of saying things. Herb wasn't saying that "there must be
a stack at low memory and a heap growing down" any more than the
teacher of geometry says that the right triangle of which the
Pythagorean theorem is true must have a certain size. "Authorial
voice" means that the author phrases things a certain way which
because of the nature of natural, as opposed to computer language, can
be misinterpreted.
Grow up. Learn how to review books with more tolerance. Or just don't.
Instead, get a real programming job in Asia and learn how real
programmers make and admit mistakes while tolerating alternate ways.
Keith Thompson
[...]
> Hmm, I thought you were ignoring me, Kiki.
My mistake.
Plonk.
--
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"
--
Francis Glassborow
>
> In real publication, fact checkers and editors catch the inevitable
> confusions and errors that creep in. The poster to a moderated group
> has the right to expect this of the moderator.
>
of the specific group.Rejecting posts here (as in the other newsgroups I
take) because of factual error is not part of the policy of
clc.moderated. If it were then the job would be impossible.
The only issue here is whether a moderator should censor criticism of
himself. My answer is an emphatic 'No'. However I think that rejecting
your posts for foul language and personal abuse would be fine.
Francis Glassborow
> On Dec 23, 6:56 am, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>> spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> But the really stunning error is "for example, the body of a function
>>> is a compound statement". That is PRECISELY wrong. The syntax of a
>>> function declaration is separate from the syntax of if, for, and
>>> while, each of which control a "statement", which can be either a
>>> simple statement, or a block.
>> Wrong again.
>>
>> The grammar for a function definition is in C99 6.9.1p1:
>>
>> function-definition:
>> declaration-specifiers declarator declaration-list[opt]
>> compound-statement
>>
>> (That should be 2 lines rather than 3.)
>>
>> Oh, and you also managed to confuse function definitions with
>> function declarations.
>
> I use declaration and definition interchangeably because the two
> concepts are incorrectly separated in C.
separated except in so far as there are declarations that are not
definitions (in the technical sense applied within the C Standard)
6.7 para 5 of the 1999 Standard states:
A declaration specifies the interpretation and attributes of a set of
identifiers. A definition (in italics so it is a 'definition of the word
within the technical context as required by ISO rules) of an identifier
is a declaration for that identifier that:
-- for an object, causes storage to be reserved for that object;
-- for a function, includes the function body;
-- for an enumeration constant or typedef name, is the (only)
declaration of the identifier.
The body of the function
> "definition" is not a statement in any meaningful sense. Therefore it
> should not be called a "compound statement". It should be called a
> block.
I think you are using plain English meanings for words that have been
specifically refined for use in the C Standard. The usage of statement
in C is described in 6.8 and a function definition is exactly a group of
zero or more C statements and such a group is called a compound statement.
If you want to argue about these things you are in the wrong newsgroup.
The correct newsgroup for such issues is comp.std.c.
>
> The problem here is that the out of date grammar and semantics of C
> structure your thought. But, a grammar is not science. It's just a
> taxonomy, a "terminology" which here blinds you to the fact that it's
> a pure accident that compound statements and the bodies of function
> definitions/declarations have identical syntax.
Rubbish. When discussing technical issues it is desirable to understand
what others are saying. This is achieved by having an agreement as to
the meaning of some terms.
>
> You lack experience outside of C which causes you to think of
> artifacts such as sequence points are real science when in fact they
> have roughly the same status as astrology. But you also never have
> implemented C, which also causes you to treat an artifact as natural.
Sequence points are exactly what the C Standard says they are and
whether or not they have any relevance outside C is immaterial. Yes they
are problematic but identifying places where side effects of a
computation will be complete is of benefit to those writing high quality
(and high integrity) code. One of the problems WG14 is grappling with at
the moment is that sequence points are rather less useful in a world of
multi-core, multi-CPU systems. But that does not make them useless or
some mythical invention.
From the above I deduce that Herbert Schildt for all his failings both
real and imagined knows a great deal more about C than you do, just not
as much as he thinks he does (on the evidence of his published works.)
What degrees a person has is relevant for a few years after they have
obtained them but they should be increasingly judged on what they have
done subsequently. This is particularly true in technological areas
where change and development happens at such a fast rate. There is
nothing magical in having a degree in computer science. Indeed I recall
that the only person I ever had removed from a computer programming
course was one of the few people attending these courses who had such a
degree. It amazed me to discover that he had succeeded in getting a BA
in CS without ever having written a successful program (i.e. one that
compiled and executed to do what it was designed to do.) My employers
had to send him back to his employer with a recommendation that he spend
the next few weeks intensively gaining experience of actually writing
code. After which they were willing to allow him to redo the course.
Dennis (Icarus)
> On Dec 23, 6:55 am, "Dennis \(Icarus\)" <nojunkm...@ever.invalid>
> wrote:
>> "spinoza1111" <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:clcm-2009...@plethora.net...
>>
>> > On Nov 7, 12:56 am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>> > Your care was on display as a moderator when you allowed a post that
>> > accidentally involved Seibel. Why is it OK for you to pretend to be a
>> > newsgroup moderator? You're not competent at the job.
>>
>> Why did you make the error in the first place?
>> It is your responsibility to review and edit your posts prior to sending.
>
> Oooooohhhh....personal Responsibility. Yes, of course.
That's where you should've stopped.
>
> In real publication, fact checkers and editors catch the inevitable
> confusions and errors that creep in. The poster to a moderated group
> has the right to expect this of the moderator.
Not necessarily. You may want to read the comp.lang.c.moerated faq.
Also, in the books I've read, the author will take responsibility for any
errors, and not try to blame others.
It's usually in the acknowledgements/introduction section.
<snip>
Dennis
.
--
Richard Heathfield
<snip>
> It's also the
> responsibility of the "moderator" of a "moderated" group to
> "moderate" the "group": cf. comp.risks for an example of proper
> moderation.
Seebs: it is only very rarely that I am able to agree with the
self-styled spino...@yahoo.com, but this does seem to be one such
occasion. I have only occasionally dipped into comp.risks, and never
posted there as far as I can recall, but a quick Google search gives
at least one indicator that the moderator is doing a grand job; it
seems that not a single article by spinoza1111 has ever been
approved. It seems to be a very successful policy.
--
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
> I think you make xxxxxx look bad with your
> Schildt post, since, as I have said, the post has gone viral and is
> the single source of all rumors about Schildt, because (as I have
> said) Internet users confuse duplicate information with new
> information.
No one has provided more duplicate information
on Schildt reviews than you have.
You have been relentless in making sure that Schildt
reviews should be read by everyone who reads
these newsgroups.
I can only assume you have some reason to promote
the Schildt reviews
w..
spinoza1111
> spinoza1111wrote:
> > I think you make xxxxxx look bad with your
> > Schildt post, since, as I have said, the post has gone viral and is
> > the single source of all rumors about Schildt, because (as I have
> > said) Internet users confuse duplicate information with new
> > information.
>
> No one has provided more duplicate information
> on Schildt reviews than you have.
>
> You have been relentless in making sure that Schildt
> reviews should be read by everyone who reads
> these newsgroups.
>
> I can only assume you have some reason to promote
> the Schildt reviews
There's no such thing as bad publicity. My own book royalties have
been increasing as people see me flamed.
If people revisit Schildt's books after realizing how thin the case
against him actually was, this benefits him.
Once you publish a computer book, you're in the public eye for good or
bad.
>
> w..
> --
> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must
spinoza1111
> In <clcm-20091222-0...@plethora.net>,spinoza1111wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > It's also the
> > responsibility of the "moderator" of a "moderated" group to
> > "moderate" the "group": cf. comp.risks for an example of proper
> > moderation.
>
> Seebs: it is only very rarely that I am able to agree with the
> occasion. I have only occasionally dipped into comp.risks, and never
> posted there as far as I can recall, but a quick Google search gives
> at least one indicator that the moderator is doing a grand job; it
> approved. It seems to be a very successful policy.
You're lying; see for example "The Total Information Awareness program
is a RISK! (Edward G. Nilges)" in Risks 22.24 at
http://lists.jammed.com/RISKS/2002/12/0003.html. In that post, I
critiqued an enormous Homeland Security boondoggle run by thugs like
you from a technical data base standpoint.
How does it feel to have your lack of credibility and vicious
dishonesty so completely exposed?
Peter Neumann, unlike Seebach, reads submissions and he has contacted
me with questions. Furthermore, he agreed in 2003 to be interviewed by
me on his memories of Dijkstra for my book.
Unfortunately, he is not getting any younger, and the new generation
of liars, fools and thugs (like you, Peter Seebach, and "quertyuiop"
at www.lamma.com.HK) are too dishonest, too careless, and too biased
to moderate "moderated" groups with any moderation or decency.
Asshole.
>
> --
> 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
> --
> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must
Keith Thompson
> In <clcm-2009...@plethora.net>, spinoza1111 wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> It's also the
>> responsibility of the "moderator" of a "moderated" group to
>> "moderate" the "group": cf. comp.risks for an example of proper
>> moderation.
>
> Seebs: it is only very rarely that I am able to agree with the
> self-styled spino...@yahoo.com, but this does seem to be one such
> occasion. I have only occasionally dipped into comp.risks, and never
> posted there as far as I can recall, but a quick Google search gives
> at least one indicator that the moderator is doing a grand job; it
> seems that not a single article by spinoza1111 has ever been
> approved. It seems to be a very successful policy.
A groups.google.com advanced search shows no articles in comp.risks
with "spinoza1111" or "Nilges" as the author, but that's because of
the way the digest is generated. Each posting to the comp.risks
newsgroup is a collection of individual articles; the author
of the collection is shown as "RISKS List Owner". Apparently
groups.google.com doesn't dig into the body of each sub-article in
a digest to extract the individual headers.
A groups.google.com search for "spinoza1111" or "Nilges" in the body
of messages in comp.risks, or a search on the comp.risks web site,
<http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks>, does get a number of hits.
(I've dropped comp.lang.c from the Newsgroups line; there's no reason
for this to be cross-posted.)
--
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"
spinoza1111
> Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> writes:
>
> > <snip>
>
> >> It's also the
> >> responsibility of the "moderator" of a "moderated" group to
> >> "moderate" the "group": cf. comp.risks for an example of proper
> >> moderation.
>
> > Seebs: it is only very rarely that I am able to agree with the
> > occasion. I have only occasionally dipped into comp.risks, and never
> > posted there as far as I can recall, but a quick Google search gives
> > at least one indicator that the moderator is doing a grand job; it
> > approved. It seems to be a very successful policy.
>
> A groups.google.com advanced search shows no articles in comp.risks
> with "spinoza1111" or "Nilges" as the author, but that's because of
> the way the digest is generated. Each posting to the comp.risks
> newsgroup is a collection of individual articles; the author
> of the collection is shown as "RISKS List Owner". Apparently
> groups.google.com doesn't dig into the body of each sub-article in
> a digest to extract the individual headers.
I thought you were staying out of this, Kiki, but never mind...
If this is meant to defend Heathfield, it fails. To be considered free
of malicious (and therefore libelous) intent, Heathfield had to
exercise diligence, using the expertise he claims.
If I claim to have posted and Heathfield says I'm lying, the matter is
serious enough for him to investigate a null result. He would quickly
learn that the "author" is the Risks list owner, and would have to (to
be considered by a court of law free of malicious intent) (1) note
that each post contains several authors and (2) find the proper
archive.
Even with malicious intent, a normal user would do this merely to
avoid looking foolish and incompetent in light of Richard's claims to
expertise.
If Richard even occasionally dipped into comp.risks, he would see that
each post is a collective of authors, each of whom has been approved
by the moderator.
>
> A groups.google.com search for "spinoza1111" or "Nilges" in the body
> of messages in comp.risks, or a search on the comp.risks web site,
> <http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks>, does get a number of hits.
Yes, and what this shows is that the "isolated lone nuts" here are
people like Heathfield, since Neumann is a highly respected person who
takes a great deal of care in moderating comp.risks.
>
> (I've dropped comp.lang.c from the Newsgroups line; there's no reason
> for this to be cross-posted.)
>
> --
> 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"
> --
> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must
Gordon Burditt
as the primary poster in it has admitted that the motive behind it
is COMMERCIAL SPAM:
>There's no such thing as bad publicity. My own book royalties have
>been increasing as people see me flamed.
spinoza1111
> Mr. Moderator, I call for a cutoff of this "Herb Schildt" thread,
> as the primary poster in it has admitted that the motive behind it
> is COMMERCIAL SPAM:
>
> >There's no such thing as bad publicity. My own book royalties have
> >been increasing as people see me flamed.
That's not my motivation. It's just a happy accident. Trust me: I
could make money a lot faster than by posting here.
>
> --
> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must
Francis Glassborow
And why would one search for the name Edward Nilges when checking for
posts by spinoza1111? Apparently to add to all your other deficiencies,
you are unable to read plain English.
A lie is something said with the deliberate intent to deceive. I can see
no evidence that Richard has done any such thing. What I do see is
evidence that you have mental deficiencies (and sue me, please do, I
would really love it in view of the mountain of evidence you have
provided here and elsewhere in usenet newsgroups)
If you choose to post rubbish as spinoza1111 and sense as Edward Nilges
(assuming without looking that that is the case, and I will take the
moderator of comp.risks word for that). that is your affair.
Seebs
> Mr. Moderator, I call for a cutoff of this "Herb Schildt" thread,
> as the primary poster in it has admitted that the motive behind it
> is COMMERCIAL SPAM:
>>There's no such thing as bad publicity. My own book royalties have
>>been increasing as people see me flamed.
Tempting, but I think I'll let it run. I don't think it qualifies
as commercial spam, even if it might theoretically be yeilding
positive results. Also, we have no credible source for the claim
that book royalties are affected at all by this.
-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!
spinoza1111
<francis.glassbo...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> spinoza1111wrote:
> > to moderate "moderated" groups with any moderation or decency.
>
> > Asshole.
>
> And why would one search for the name Edward Nilges when checking for
> you are unable to read plain English.
I've addressed this matter. It's common knowledge, and it is known to
Richard based on his long stalking of me on comp.programming and
comp.lang.c, that spinoza1111 is Edward G. Nilges.
>
> A lie is something said with the deliberate intent to deceive. I can see
> no evidence that Richard has done any such thing. What I do see is
> evidence that you have mental deficiencies (and sue me, please do, I
> would really love it in view of the mountain of evidence you have
> provided here and elsewhere in usenet newsgroups)
How are my "mental deficiencies" on display, dear Francis? I'd say
that they are on display in people who expect us not to just go to the
risks archive to verify a simple fact. I'd say they are on display in
a "moderator" who allows lies and obvious errors to be posted, and
who's proud of being ADHD and without education in his field.
But I understand full well that the usual crap obtains. Indeed,
precisely as Peter Seebach relies not on doing his homework, but on
the blind replication of "C: The Complete Nonsense" to harm Schildt
with malice, your mere blind repetition of your fantasies about me
will add to a "paper trail" about me that anyone can mine at home in
his spare time.
This process, and your participation in it, is as evil as the Stasi of
East Germany, who employed half the population of East Germany to spy
on the other half, with the result that using pre-Internet technology,
anyone could be "brought down" at any time, and everyone lived in
fear.
The same sort of fear results here from a similar method of blind
social control which serves the interests of elites.
>
> If you choose to post rubbish asspinoza1111and sense as Edward Nilges
> (assuming without looking that that is the case, and I will take the
> moderator of comp.risks word for that). that is your affair.
> --
> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must
spinoza1111
> On 2009-12-25, Gordon Burditt <gordonb.6r...@burditt.org> wrote:
>
> > Mr. Moderator, I call for a cutoff of this "Herb Schildt" thread,
> > as the primary poster in it has admitted that the motive behind it
> > is COMMERCIAL SPAM:
> >>There's no such thing as bad publicity. My own book royalties have
> >>been increasing as people see me flamed.
>
> Tempting, but I think I'll let it run. I don't think it qualifies
> as commercial spam, even if it might theoretically be yeilding
> positive results. Also, we have no credible source for the claim
> that book royalties are affected at all by this.
Peter, by writing "tempting, but I think I'll let it run" you show
that you do elect to make judgements about posts submitted to
comp.lang.c.moderated, and this will, I believe, be interpreted by an
attorney to mean that you acted with conscious malice in approving an
obvious lie from Heathfield, and approving a post that obviously
confused you with the innocent third party Seibel.
What this means: your defense that you don't really "moderate", and
allow all but spam, is a lie. You looked at my posts from the
standpoint of whether I was promoting my book, and you decided
(rightly) that they aren't intended to promote the book.
Therefore, you do profess to be a real moderator and to moderate with
intent. But in approving a harmful error post and a malicious lie, you
show mis and malfeasance, misusing your position.
But after receiving email from you in which you say you threw it away
unread, I really need to use TS Eliot's words. Moderate this, jerk
face:
The Hollow Men
A penny for the Old Guy
I
We are the hollow men
We are the stuffed men
Leaning together
Headpiece filled with straw. Alas!
Our dried voices, when
We whisper together
Are quiet and meaningless
As wind in dry grass
Or rats' feet over broken glass
In our dry cellar
Shape without form, shade without colour,
Paralysed force, gesture without motion;
Those who have crossed
With direct eyes, to death's other Kingdom
Remember us-if at all-not as lost
Violent souls, but only
As the hollow men
The stuffed men
II
Eyes I dare not meet in dreams
In death's dream kingdom
These do not appear:
There, the eyes are
Sunlight on a broken column
There, is a tree swinging
And voices are
In the wind's singing
More distant and more solemn
Than a fading star.
Let me be no nearer
In death's dream kingdom
Let me also wear
Such deliberate disguises
Rat's coat, crowskin, crossed staves
In a field
Behaving as the wind behaves
No nearer-
Not that final meeting
In the twilight kingdom
III
This is the dead land
This is cactus land
Here the stone images
Are raised, here they receive
The supplication of a dead man's hand
Under the twinkle of a fading star.
Is it like this
In death's other kingdom
Walking alone
At the hour when we are
Trembling with tenderness
Lips that would kiss
Form prayers to broken stone.
IV
The eyes are not here
There are no eyes here
In this valley of dying stars
In this hollow valley
This broken jaw of our lost kingdoms
In this last of meeting places
We grope together and avoid speech
Gathered on this beach of the tumid river
Sightless, unless
The eyes reappear
As the perpetual star
Multifoliate rose
Of death's twilight kingdom
The hope only
Of empty men
V
Here we go round the prickly pear
Prickly pear prickly pear
Here we go round the prickly pear
At five o'clock in the morning.
Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom
Between the conception
And the creation
Between the emotion
And the response
Falls the shadow
Life is very long
Between the desire
And the spasm
Between the potency
And the existence
Between the essence
And the descent
Falls the Shadow
For Thine is the Kingdom
For Thine is
Life is
For thine is the
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a whimper.
>
> -s
> --
> Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@seebs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
> --
> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must
Keith Thompson
[...]
> And why would one search for the name Edward Nilges when checking for
> posts by spinoza1111? Apparently to add to all your other
> deficiencies, you are unable to read plain English.
A search for *either* "spinoza1111" or "Nilges" on comp.risks
yields several hits. I think the former yields just Nilges' posts,
and the latter yields those plus a number of responses to them.
I haven't gone to much effort to confirm this.
The only reason Richard Heathfield didn't find anything is probably
that he searched on Google Groups for the author, and all comp.risks
postings have "RISKS List Owner" as the author. Richard committed a
trivial and perfecly understandable oversight in an offhanded remark.
I'm speculating about how Richard performed the search, but
it's a reasonable inference.
(Note that "spinoza1111" blames Richard for making this mistake,
and not the moderator for failing to catch it before approving the
article.)
I think you'll find that attempting to reason with "spinoza1111"
on this point (or any other) will just generate even more noise.
[posted only to clc.moderated; dropped clc]
Merry Christmas!
--
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"
Erik Max Francis
> On 2009-12-25, Gordon Burditt <gordon...@burditt.org> wrote:
>> Mr. Moderator, I call for a cutoff of this "Herb Schildt" thread,
>> as the primary poster in it has admitted that the motive behind it
>> is COMMERCIAL SPAM:
>
>>> There's no such thing as bad publicity. My own book royalties have
>>> been increasing as people see me flamed.
>
> Tempting, but I think I'll let it run. I don't think it qualifies
> as commercial spam, even if it might theoretically be yeilding
> positive results. Also, we have no credible source for the claim
> that book royalties are affected at all by this.
I have a strong suspicion that, were Schildt aware of it, he would _not_
appreciate his "defender" here. This is not helping anyone at all,
least of all him.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis
Adultery is the application of democracy to love.
-- H.L. Mencken
Seebs
> I have a strong suspicion that, were Schildt aware of it, he would _not_
> appreciate his "defender" here. This is not helping anyone at all,
> least of all him.
Presumably, Spinny was talking about his own royalties. Whether or not this
conversation induces people to buy a book about .NET compilers is hard for
me to speculate on.
I mostly just don't care, though. The posts are vaguely about the question
of whether Schildt's books are any good, which is one of long-standing
historical interest to people learning C. It's no problem to me that we
now have a tireless promoter for the notion that essentially every expert
on the C language ever to offer an opinion has said that they're crap, and
that this opinion of them is essentially universal among experienced
participants. If he wishes to suggest to people that you would have to
be a tinfoil-hat grade conspiracy theorist to imagine that the books are
any better than that, he's welcome to do it.
I suspect that, in fact, this is rather more harmful than helpful to
Schildt's reputation, but I frankly don't care either way -- and I care even
less in my official capacity.
The posts are discussing C programming and/or learning about C programming,
specifically, books about C and their various merits, or the merits of
criticisms of those books. It's a little loosely topical, but it's not
the Win32 API or the internals of the Linux dynamic linker, so it's good
enough for me.
I stopped reading Spinny's posts ages ago, and I encourage other people to
do likewise. However, while they appear to be a complete waste of time for
any purposes other than sheer entertainment, they are topical enough to pass
the fairly low bar I intentionally set for this group.
-s
p.s.: Merry Christmas! (Or, if you are not a devout capitalist, "happy
holidays".)
--
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!
Chad
Someone related to me lived in communist East Germany under his own
free will. He was an American Citizen that liked East Germany better
than the United States. He said that no one was denied medical
attention because they didn't have insurance and the Communist
Government took the time to listen to his gripes about the system.
Also, I don't ever recall him telling us that he lived in fear.
Actually, the part that kind of shocked me was that the East German
Government would let him just live to go back to the United States
whenever he wanted. I guess I find this kind of shocking because it
contradicted what I learned in school about Communism.
Joe Wright
>> This process, and your participation in it, is as evil as the Stasi of
>> East Germany, who employed half the population of East Germany to spy
>> on the other half, with the result that using pre-Internet technology,
>> anyone could be "brought down" at any time, and everyone lived in
>> fear.
>>
>
> Someone related to me lived in communist East Germany under his own
> free will. He was an American Citizen that liked East Germany better
> than the United States. He said that no one was denied medical
> attention because they didn't have insurance and the Communist
> Government took the time to listen to his gripes about the system.
>
> Also, I don't ever recall him telling us that he lived in fear.
> Actually, the part that kind of shocked me was that the East German
> Government would let him just live to go back to the United States
> whenever he wanted. I guess I find this kind of shocking because it
> contradicted what I learned in school about Communism.
Any American who would prefer to live in East Germany has a screw loose. If
he didn't live in fear he just didn't understand the situation. The Berlin
Wall was not to keep the West out of Paradise. The machine gun towers along
the wall were not for show. They were there to shoot East germans in the
back as they tried to escape to the West.
Your relative is a liar, a fool or worse.
--
Joe Wright
"If you rob Peter to pay Paul you can depend on the support of Paul."
Keith Thompson
> Chad wrote:
>> On Dec 25, 5:19 am, spinoza1111 <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [ snip ]
>>> This process, and your participation in it, is as evil as the Stasi of
>>> East Germany,
>> Someone related to me lived in communist East Germany under his own
>> free will.
> Any American who would prefer to live in East Germany has a screw
> loose.
Moderator: How exactly is this related to 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"
spinoza1111
Interesting, and corresponds to what I've heard. We had some Russians
working at Bell Northern Research in the 1980s and they liked their
society. Their favorite movie was Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears.
Watch Goodbye, Lenin, a film.
Post Communism, a few people (most of them high-ranking members of the
Communist party) got rich by privatizing social goods. The others had
to leave school to work at McDonald's or starve on newly insufficient
pensions.
The capitalist system of the US and UK has produced, here, half
educated people who can't write and, worse, think that people who use
complex syntax to be 'tards who talk like a fag and whose shit is all
fucked up.
> --
> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must
spinoza1111
> [ snip ]
> >> This process, and your participation in it, is as evil as the Stasi of
> >> East Germany, who employed half the population of East Germany to spy
> >> on the other half, with the result that using pre-Internet technology,
> >> anyone could be "brought down" at any time, and everyone lived in
> >> fear.
>
> > Someone related to me lived in communist East Germany under his own
> > free will. He was an American Citizen that liked East Germany better
> > than the United States. He said that no one was denied medical
> > attention because they didn't have insurance and the Communist
> > Government took the time to listen to his gripes about the system.
>
> > Also, I don't ever recall him telling us that he lived in fear.
> > Actually, the part that kind of shocked me was that the East German
> > Government would let him just live to go back to the United States
> > whenever he wanted. I guess I find this kind of shocking because it
> > contradicted what I learned in school about Communism.
>
> Any American who would prefer to live in East Germany has a screw loose. If
> he didn't live in fear he just didn't understand the situation. The Berlin
> Wall was not to keep the West out of Paradise. The machine gun towers along
> the wall were not for show. They were there to shoot East germans in the
> back as they tried to escape to the West.
Many Americans want a wall, in the USA, to keep people out and are
cool with shooting illegal immigrants. People wanted to emigrate from
the Eastern Bloc not so much because it was "bad", it was a society in
which people could get free education and medical care, but because of
the old human instinct that believes that the grass is always greener
on the other side.
>
> Your relative is a liar, a fool or worse.
>
> --
> Joe Wright
> "If you rob Peter to pay Paul you can depend on the support of Paul."
> --
> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must
spinoza1111
> >> Mr. Moderator, I call for a cutoff of this "Herb Schildt" thread,
> >> as the primary poster in it has admitted that the motive behind it
> >> is COMMERCIAL SPAM:
>
> >>> There's no such thing as bad publicity. My own book royalties have
> >>> been increasing as people see me flamed.
>
> > Tempting, but I think I'll let it run. I don't think it qualifies
> > as commercial spam, even if it might theoretically be yeilding
> > positive results. Also, we have no credible source for the claim
> > that book royalties are affected at all by this.
>
> I have a strong suspicion that, were Schildt aware of it, he would _not_
> appreciate his "defender" here. This is not helping anyone at all,
> least of all him.
I know, by ways I am not free to disclose, that Schildt approves. You
replicate the fissionary and anti-solidarity corporation where
unapproved bottom up coalitions are a threat. The pity of it being
that we don't have to make these newsgroups a simulated or virtual
version of a nasty little business office, but you do.
>
> --
> Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com &&http://www.alcyone.com/max/
> San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis
> Adultery is the application of democracy to love.
> -- H.L. Mencken
> --
> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must
Seebs
> Moderator: How exactly is this related to C?
Topic drift. Although this is starting to get ridiculous.
-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!
Keith Thompson
> On Dec 26, 5:24 am, Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
>> I have a strong suspicion that, were Schildt aware of it, he would _not_
>> appreciate his "defender" here. This is not helping anyone at all,
>> least of all him.
>
> I know, by ways I am not free to disclose, that Schildt approves.
Ask him to post here.
--
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"
Seebs
>> I know, by ways I am not free to disclose, that Schildt approves.
> Ask him to post here.
You are perhaps not familiar with the rhetorical idiom "the lurkers
support me in email".
-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!
Erik Max Francis
> On Dec 26, 5:24 am, Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
>> Seebs wrote:
>>> On 2009-12-25, Gordon Burditt <gordonb.6r...@burditt.org> wrote:
>>>> Mr. Moderator, I call for a cutoff of this "Herb Schildt" thread,
>>>> as the primary poster in it has admitted that the motive behind it
>>>> is COMMERCIAL SPAM:
>>>>> There's no such thing as bad publicity. My own book royalties have
>>>>> been increasing as people see me flamed.
>>> Tempting, but I think I'll let it run. I don't think it qualifies
>>> as commercial spam, even if it might theoretically be yeilding
>>> positive results. Also, we have no credible source for the claim
>>> that book royalties are affected at all by this.
>> I have a strong suspicion that, were Schildt aware of it, he would _not_
>> appreciate his "defender" here. This is not helping anyone at all,
>> least of all him.
>
> I know, by ways I am not free to disclose, that Schildt approves.
Sure he does. Get the confirmation via telepathy, did you?
> You
> replicate the fissionary and anti-solidarity corporation where
> unapproved bottom up coalitions are a threat. The pity of it being
> that we don't have to make these newsgroups a simulated or virtual
> version of a nasty little business office, but you do.
Congratulations for stringing big words together in a way that means
nothing, and has nothing to do with anything remotely related to
anything I said.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis
This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and
we'll be lucky to live through it. -- Adm. Josh Painter
spinoza1111
> On 2009-12-26, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>
> >> I know, by ways I am not free to disclose, that Schildt approves.
> > Ask him to post here.
He chooses not to and that's his right. You choose not to discuss our
differences in email.
>
> You are perhaps not familiar with the rhetorical idiom "the lurkers
> support me in email".
Kenny and "Richard" aren't lurkers, are they. In fact, I have never
heard of this "rhetorical idiom" (as you call it in such a meaningless
and half-educated fashion) outside of a text posted by an internet
thug who's trying to destroy what he thinks is a safe target. In fact,
research has shown that most decent people are so horrified by the
bullying that goes on on the Internet that they are for the most part
lurkers, and while they support the victims, they are loth primarily
for job related reasons to actively post in the victims' favor,
because then they are targeted in turn.
You're an interesting case study, Peter. This is because you rely upon
what happened in the 1960s for your lifestyle and your access to a
simulacrum of a career without proper education, but in your own
cowardly way, you remind me of the bullies in the 1950s against whom I
stood up. Their mythos was testesrone-fueled, but you seem a witches'
brew of post-Mom estrogen and testesterone.
For example, you want sympathy for being fashionably attention
disordered. When I was in school, it wasn't called ADHD. It was called
bein' a stupid jerk who needed to shape up. The cure was often
physical training, Army-style, and in fact it worked.
But it would be fine with me if you just asked us all to sympathize
with widdle Peter. The problem is that you call your fellow Apress
author a "moron" in such a way to cast doubt on the way in which
Apress selects its authors; either I'm a moron or else you're an
irresponsible and half-educated thug. I now wonder whether as a script
kiddie you were even qualified to write on shell scripting, because in
my own educational praxis I introduce things in structured groups,
whereas you seem to overspecialize.
I have no problem with Mama's boys per se. I do have a problem with
vicious little twats, however.
I have no problem with people making incorrect statements outside
their area of expertise such as "the 'heap' is a DOS term". I do have
a problem when these statements are made as part of a personalized
campaign against one person whose praxis generally works.
>
> -s
> --
> Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@seebs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
> --
> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must
spinoza1111
> On 2009-12-26, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>
> > Moderator: How exactly is this related to C?
>
> Topic drift. Although this is starting to get ridiculous.
Not necessarily. The "liberation" of the Eastern Bloc was in part
technological. It became more and more senseless that its computer
networks were isolated from those of the West, and many of the
dissidents (such as Natan Scharansky, later an Israeli politician)
were frustrated computer geeks who as such were on the simultaneous
cutting edge of repression and liberation.
Charles Szymonyi escaped from Hungary to join Microsoft, and invent
"Hungarian" notation.
Kids in the Eastern Bloc admired the putatively superior technology of
the West and equated it with freedom. Ten years later, they found
themselves working with it...as McDonald's or Starbuck's employees
without autonomy, the technology having taken that away.
Dennis Ritchie probably thought that he was being very cool by cocking
a snook at Multics and PL/I and inventing a new programming language
with cool features. Unfortunately, he FAILED to think through the
implications of the pre and post increment and decrement and the
result was the excrescence of "sequence points", a completely
unnecessary bit of theology invented to protect vendors. He also
FAILED to see the dangers of sprintf.
In the same way, today, greedy bankers loaned money freely to the
former Eastern Bloc country of Estonia, destroying its future as of
today when they found that those loans could not be repaid.
Your lack of culture isn't "topic drift".
>
> -s
> --
> Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nos...@seebs.nethttp://www.seebs.net/log/<-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictureshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
> --
> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must
spinoza1111
> spinoza1111wrote:
Congratulations on negative reading comprehension and insufficient
vocabulary:
You reproduce the way in which the corporation (in which individuals
are encouraged to compete and for this reason are split apart and
discouraged from working together in a common interest) where
associations not approved are a threat. It's a fucking shame that you
come home, log on, and reproduce the nasty office politics of work.
I hope this helps.
>
> --
> Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com &&http://www.alcyone.com/max/
> San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis
> This business will get out of control. It will get out of control and
> we'll be lucky to live through it. -- Adm. Josh Painter
> --
> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must
Erik Max Francis
> On Dec 26, 3:47 pm, Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
>> spinoza1111wrote:
>>> replicate the fissionary and anti-solidarity corporation where
>>> unapproved bottom up coalitions are a threat. The pity of it being
>>> that we don't have to make these newsgroups a simulated or virtual
>>> version of a nasty little business office, but you do.
>> Congratulations for stringing big words together in a way that means
>> nothing, and has nothing to do with anything remotely related to
>> anything I said.
>
> Congratulations on negative reading comprehension and insufficient
> vocabulary:
>
> You reproduce the way in which the corporation (in which individuals
> are encouraged to compete and for this reason are split apart and
> discouraged from working together in a common interest) where
> associations not approved are a threat. It's a fucking shame that you
> come home, log on, and reproduce the nasty office politics of work.
Still completely incoherent. Congratulations again.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis
Civilizations die of suicide, not murder.
-- Arnold Toynbee
Richard
And listened to everything else. The East German Stasi were amongst the
most evil and oppressive regimes the world has seen. All these stories
about Halcyon "one ness" are complete bullshit as you would know if you
actually really knew anyone who lived under their icy and non wavering
gaze.
--
"Avoid hyperbole at all costs, its the most destructive argument on
the planet" - Mark McIntyre in comp.lang.c
spinoza1111
> spinoza1111wrote:
> > On Dec 26, 3:47 pm, Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
> >> spinoza1111wrote:
> >>> You
> >>> replicate the fissionary and anti-solidarity corporation where
> >>> unapproved bottom up coalitions are a threat. The pity of it being
> >>> that we don't have to make these newsgroups a simulated or virtual
> >>> version of a nasty little business office, but you do.
> >> Congratulations for stringing big words together in a way that means
> >> nothing, and has nothing to do with anything remotely related to
> >> anything I said.
>
> > Congratulations on negative reading comprehension and insufficient
> > vocabulary:
>
> > You reproduce the way in which the corporation (in which individuals
> > are encouraged to compete and for this reason are split apart and
> > discouraged from working together in a common interest) where
> > associations not approved are a threat. It's a fucking shame that you
> > come home, log on, and reproduce the nasty office politics of work.
>
> Still completely incoherent. Congratulations again.
Another failure in simple comprehension. Nice goin', Reading Rainbow.
>
> --
> Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com &&http://www.alcyone.com/max/
> San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis
> Civilizations die of suicide, not murder.
> -- Arnold Toynbee
> --
> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must
Francis Glassborow
> Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> writes:
>> In <clcm-2009...@plethora.net>, spinoza1111 wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> It's also the
>>> responsibility of the "moderator" of a "moderated" group to
>>> "moderate" the "group": cf. comp.risks for an example of proper
>>> moderation.
>> Seebs: it is only very rarely that I am able to agree with the
>> posted there as far as I can recall, but a quick Google search gives
>> at least one indicator that the moderator is doing a grand job; it
>
> with "spinoza1111" or "Nilges" as the author, but that's because of
> the way the digest is generated. Each posting to the comp.risks
> newsgroup is a collection of individual articles; the author
> of the collection is shown as "RISKS List Owner". Apparently
> groups.google.com doesn't dig into the body of each sub-article in
> a digest to extract the individual headers.
>
> A groups.google.com search for "spinoza1111" or "Nilges" in the body
> of messages in comp.risks, or a search on the comp.risks web site,
> <http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks>, does get a number of hits.
>
You are right and I apologise. I did actually check before posting but
must have made a mistake somewhere because I just retried and got seven
hits for spinoza1111.
However it is clearly easy to get this particular search wrong.
Clive D. W. Feather
<spino...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> (1) There's no such thing as "British libel law".
>
>Wow. Izzat so? I teach British constitutional law based on "AV Dicey's
>Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution", and Ian
>Loveland's "Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Human Rights",
Well, Otto, if you'd actually understood what you read, you'd have
realized that there is no such thing as British law.
Here's a big clue: England and Scotland have completely different legal
systems. Different laws, different courts, different constitutions.
>and of course, Britain is known for its libel law, which is used world-
>wide owing to its severity and entrenchment.
No, many people use the English courts for bringing libel cases because
it is seen as being relatively favourable towards plaintiffs.
>> (2) I probably know far more about the topic of libel than you do. See (3).
>>
>> (3) One of the most experienced and best-known QCs at the libel Bar has my
>> personal mobile number in his phone and calls me for advice on Internet
>> libel cases. He thinks you're talking total and utter twaddle.
>
>If there is no such thing as British libel law, there's no such thing
>as a libel bar,
Wrong again. There are many libel bars, just not a British libel bar.
>and your Queen's Counsel friend is a peri-wigg'd
>fraud.
So you've just libelled Geoffrey Robertson.
>I have communicated from time to time with Geoffrey Robertson
>since he liked my review of his 1999 book Crimes Against Humanity but
>I don't bother him with silly questions.
Nor do I. The difference seems to be that he talks to me, not to you.
>> (4) If it ever came to court [pauses to stop rolling around the floor
>> laughing] I'd just call Dennis Ritchie [deliberate name-drop, far better
>> than this Nash person you rely on]: he's said that I know C better than
>> him.
>How would he know? Your logic is exactly wrong.
[Already addressed elsewhere.]
>> > But while you're here, I need from you a statement of your educational
>> > qualifications in computer science. Thank you.
>>
>> No, you don't.
>>
>> You *want* a statement of my educational qualifications. You don't need
>> them. I suspect you either want to poke fun at them, or to write to the
>> establishment in question and try to cause trouble, or something else like
>> that.
>
>Perhaps.
So you're only asking for malicious purposes.
>But what constitutes libel under British and American
>law is to make absurd, and demonstrably false statements, such as "the
>'heap' is a DOS term" with malicious intent to defame a person who has
>far more certification than thee.
More nonsense. Like I said, your knowledge of English libel law is badly
lacking.
>> If you're desperate to find out, do what any decent collegiate academic
>> would do and research it for yourself. The answer is out there if you look.
[Otto changes the subject.]
So you can't be bothered to try? Or just incapable of succeeding?
>Here's an example of your irresponsibility, Clive:
>
>Schildt:
>## In other words, one copy of a library function in memory may
>## not be used by two or more currently executing programs.
>
>Clive:
>"This is blatant nonsense - on most Unix systems, if the same program
>is executing several times, all the code is shared by both processes.
>Indeed, many go further and share one copy of the standard C library
>among every process on the system.
>What this section of the standard is talking about is re-entrancy.
>The functions in the library are not re-entrant, and so may not be
>called from within themselves."
>
>You completely confuse the issue.
No, Schildt does.
>The fact that "library functions are
>not re-entrant" implies the weaker fact that "library functions are
>not recursive and may not call themselves directly or indirectly".
True.
>Most C programmers know that you cannot (or should not) malloc inside
>a malloc error handler for this reason.
Also true.
But completely irrelevant to Schildt's erroneous point. If he was trying
to say what you claim he was, he can't write good English either.
>The unix practise (it's spelled unix)
Actually, a quick browse through my bookshelf shows it's most often
called "UNIX".
>is no more part of your C
>standard than is the stack
Also wrong and irrelevant. Schildt claimed that one copy may not be used
by two currently executing programs. Not only is that outside the scope
of the C Standard, Unix (and other OS) practice shows he's wrong.
>(although in an extensive discussion last
>month, nobody was able to think of a way to replace the stack).
As I recall, you carefully failed to cope with the two different ways
that the term "stack" was used in that discussion.
>Herb
>is in fact saying clearly what you are not able to: that concurrent
>(multitask or recursive) use of a library program is unsafe.
No he's not. That may be what he wanted to say, but if so he
spectacularly fails to do so.
>Herb: ## A compound statement is a block of code.
>
>You: "A nice sounding statement, but totally meaningless. A compound
>statement is a block of code beginning with { and ending with the
>matching }. For example, the body of a function is a compound
>statement."
>
>You're wrong
No, I'm stating exactly what the C Standard says.
> The word
>"block" has referred to a clump of code surrounded by curly braces in
>C or the "fat parentheses" begin and end in Pascal and Algol for fifty
>years.
It's the common terminology, yes, and I believe it was so used in the
Algol standard. But it's not the definition used by C.
>In fact, it's not a "block" until it is so delimited:
On the contrary, the C99 standard uses "block" for something else.
> an
>ungrouped set of statements is just an ungrouped set of statements,
>and cannot be used in an if statement, for statement, or while without
>the first statement (only) being controlled.
Irrelevant.
>But the really stunning error is "for example, the body of a function
>is a compound statement". That is PRECISELY wrong.
No, it's precisely right.
>The syntax of a
>function declaration is
irrelevant, since we're talking about function definitions here.
function-definition :
declaration-specifiers declarator declaration-list-opt
compound-statement
>separate from the syntax of if, for, and
>while, each of which control a "statement",
True.
>which can be either a
>simple statement, or a block.
Actually, there are 6 things a statement can be in C99, none of which is
a block. The term "simple statement" is not used.
>Writing this shows in fact you're incompetent, and have had no
>experience, as Herb and I have had, in developing either a parser or a
>compiler.
Writing that shows that you're incompetent and ignorant, since I've
written many parsers and compilers.
>What's not fine is for you, with no expert
>standing,
What you mean is that you're still too incompetent to figure out what my
qualifications are.
>to maliciously attack a person's reputation and livelihood,
>the reputation and livelihood of each of Herb's editors and technical
>reviewers at McGraw-Hill, and that of anyone who disagrees with you.
>
>It is civil and criminal libel.
More nonsense.
>## * Block scope begins with the opening { of a block and ends with
>## its associated closing }.
>"This is not true: while the scopes end as described, they begin, for
>each identifier, at the end of its "declarator" (that is, at the
>comma, equals sign, or semicolon after it is declared). This is
>particularly important for identifiers with block scope."
>
>If i is declared at the beginning of a block (as it must be in certain
>dialects of the ill-defined mess C) then it's moot whether you say its
>scope starts at the beginning of the block or at its definition.
However, the important point is what happens when i is declared not at
the beginning of a block.
--
Clive D.W. Feather, LL.M. (Edin) | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: <cl...@davros.org>
Keith Thompson
> On 2009-12-26, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>> spinoza1111 <spino...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>> I know, by ways I am not free to disclose, that Schildt approves.
>
>> Ask him to post here.
>
> You are perhaps not familiar with the rhetorical idiom "the lurkers
> support me in email".
I am. I don't expect a postive response.
--
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"
Jasen Betts
> On Dec 26, 2:46 pm, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
>> On 2009-12-26, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>>
>> > Moderator: How exactly is this related to C?
>>
>> Topic drift. Although this is starting to get ridiculous.
>
> Not necessarily. The "liberation" of the Eastern Bloc was in part
> technological. It became more and more senseless that its computer
> networks were isolated from those of the West, and many of the
> dissidents (such as Natan Scharansky, later an Israeli politician)
> were frustrated computer geeks who as such were on the simultaneous
> cutting edge of repression and liberation.
>
> Charles Szymonyi escaped from Hungary to join Microsoft, and invent
> "Hungarian" notation.
>
> Kids in the Eastern Bloc admired the putatively superior technology of
> the West and equated it with freedom. Ten years later, they found
> themselves working with it...as McDonald's or Starbuck's employees
> without autonomy, the technology having taken that away.
>
> Dennis Ritchie probably thought that he was being very cool by cocking
> a snook at Multics and PL/I and inventing a new programming language
> with cool features. Unfortunately, he FAILED to think through the
> implications of the pre and post increment and decrement and the
> result was the excrescence of "sequence points", a completely
> unnecessary bit of theology invented to protect vendors. He also
> FAILED to see the dangers of sprintf.
ublike gets (which is only safe in very tightly constained cases - I
don't think theres a safe case possible in only ISO C)
sprintf is not inherently more dangerous than the alternatives.
but like any feature if you don't know how and use it safely you
shouldn't use it.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
spinoza1111
> In message <clcm-20091222-0...@plethora.net>,spinoza1111
>
> <spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> (1) There's no such thing as "British libel law".
>
> >Wow. Izzat so? I teach British constitutional law based on "AV Dicey's
> >Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution", and Ian
> >Loveland's "Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Human Rights",
>
> Well, Otto, if you'd actually understood what you read, you'd have
> realized that there is no such thing as British law.
>
> Here's a big clue: England and Scotland have completely different legal
> systems. Different laws, different courts, different constitutions.
Give me a break. I'm aware that "British" encompasses Scotland and
Wales. However, Parliamentary sovereignity means that the Parliament
in London, with a permanent English majority, creates Scottish and
Welsh law, and has done so since 1707. "Devolution" is a fraud for
TV.
>
> >and of course, Britain is known for its libel law, which is used world-
> >wide owing to its severity and entrenchment.
>
> No, many people use the English courts for bringing libel cases because
> it is seen as being relatively favourable towards plaintiffs.
>
> >> (2) I probably know far more about the topic of libel than you do. See (3).
>
> >> (3) One of the most experienced and best-known QCs at the libel Bar has my
> >> personal mobile number in his phone and calls me for advice on Internet
> >> libel cases. He thinks you're talking total and utter twaddle.
>
> >If there is no such thing as British libel law, there's no such thing
> >as a libel bar,
>
> Wrong again. There are many libel bars, just not a British libel bar.
Lots of pubs, too. Feather, you play word games in order to defame,
and you're going to need a solicitor as well.
>
> >and your Queen's Counsel friend is a peri-wigg'd
> >fraud.
>
> So you've just libelled Geoffrey Robertson.
I sent him a courtesy copy of a review several years ago and have
corresponded with him from time to time. All you've proved is that
you've slandered me as well as libeled Schildt, and I don't think his
friendship means he'll work pro bono for you. Furthermore, libel law
isn't his specialty.
He probably regards you with the amusement he shows in his bio for
snot nosed little clerks who are entirely too impressed with "the
silk" and as a tolerant Australian lets you toad-eat him. But I
speculate.
>
> >I have communicated from time to time with Geoffrey Robertson
> >since he liked my review of his 1999 book Crimes Against Humanity but
> >I don't bother him with silly questions.
>
> Nor do I. The difference seems to be that he talks to me, not to you.
That's because you're condemned to live in an overpriced city with bad
food. My sympathies.
>
> >> (4) If it ever came to court [pauses to stop rolling around the floor
> >> laughing] I'd just call Dennis Ritchie [deliberate name-drop, far better
> >> than this Nash person you rely on]: he's said that I know C better than
> >> him.
> >How would he know? Your logic is exactly wrong.
>
> [Already addressed elsewhere.]
>
> >> > But while you're here, I need from you a statement of your educational
> >> > qualifications in computer science. Thank you.
>
> >> No, you don't.
>
> >> You *want* a statement of my educational qualifications. You don't need
> >> them. I suspect you either want to poke fun at them, or to write to the
> >> establishment in question and try to cause trouble, or something else like
> >> that.
>
> >Perhaps.
>
> So you're only asking for malicious purposes.
>
> >But what constitutes libel under British and American
> >law is to make absurd, and demonstrably false statements, such as "the
> >'heap' is a DOS term" with malicious intent to defame a person who has
> >far more certification than thee.
>
> More nonsense. Like I said, your knowledge of English libel law is badly
> lacking.
I'm a fast learner and re-learner, as I've demonstrated with C.
>
> >> If you're desperate to find out, do what any decent collegiate academic
> >> would do and research it for yourself. The answer is out there if you look.
>
> [Otto changes the subject.]
>
> So you can't be bothered to try? Or just incapable of succeeding?
Fuck you, asshole.
>
>
>
>
>
> >Here's an example of your irresponsibility, Clive:
>
> >Schildt:
> >## In other words, one copy of a library function in memory may
> >## not be used by two or more currently executing programs.
>
> >Clive:
> >"This is blatant nonsense - on most Unix systems, if the same program
> >is executing several times, all the code is shared by both processes.
> >Indeed, many go further and share one copy of the standard C library
> >among every process on the system.
> >What this section of the standard is talking about is re-entrancy.
> >The functions in the library are not re-entrant, and so may not be
> >called from within themselves."
>
> >You completely confuse the issue.
>
> No, Schildt does.
>
> >The fact that "library functions are
> >not re-entrant" implies the weaker fact that "library functions are
> >not recursive and may not call themselves directly or indirectly".
>
> True.
>
> >Most C programmers know that you cannot (or should not) malloc inside
> >a malloc error handler for this reason.
>
> Also true.
>
> But completely irrelevant to Schildt's erroneous point. If he was trying
> to say what you claim he was, he can't write good English either.
I don't think you're an authority on "good English". Schildt needed to
communicate the danger and he did so with appropriate real-world
logical strength. A standard has to be close-read like a law. Schildt
was not writing a book for language lawyers and creeps.
>
> >The unix practise (it's spelled unix)
>
> Actually, a quick browse through my bookshelf shows it's most often
> called "UNIX".
(what an asshole!)
There is a fellow nam'd Clive
Who emits unintentional jive
Which lacks the redeeming quality
Of anything resembling levity
That unfortunate blunder, nam'd Clive.
There is a fellow nam'd Feather
Who trots after a besilk'd Counselor
Hoping to bask in the radiance
Of an upper clawss ambience
That waterfly, nam'd Feather
>
> >is no more part of your C
> >standard than is the stack
>
> Also wrong and irrelevant. Schildt claimed that one copy may not be used
> by two currently executing programs. Not only is that outside the scope
> of the C Standard, Unix (and other OS) practice shows he's wrong.
Only if the code separates its variables in a way not specified in the
standard.
>
> >(although in an extensive discussion last
> >month, nobody was able to think of a way to replace the stack).
>
> As I recall, you carefully failed to cope with the two different ways
> that the term "stack" was used in that discussion.
You recall wrongly. Schildt overspecified the stack even as the
teacher of geometry draws one triangle.
>
> >Herb
> >is in fact saying clearly what you are not able to: that concurrent
> >(multitask or recursive) use of a library program is unsafe.
>
> No he's not. That may be what he wanted to say, but if so he
> spectacularly fails to do so.
What he said was strong enough to stop the practice.
>
> >Herb: ## A compound statement is a block of code.
>
> >You: "A nice sounding statement, but totally meaningless. A compound
> >statement is a block of code beginning with { and ending with the
> >matching }. For example, the body of a function is a compound
> >statement."
>
> >You're wrong
>
> No, I'm stating exactly what the C Standard says.
>
> > The word
> >"block" has referred to a clump of code surrounded by curly braces in
> >C or the "fat parentheses" begin and end in Pascal and Algol for fifty
> >years.
>
> It's the common terminology, yes, and I believe it was so used in the
> Algol standard. But it's not the definition used by C.
Can C speak? No, not any more than it is "efficient". You use
metaphor, as does Schildt, of necessity, and had you any sense or
sensibility, you would see that a metaphorical statement can always be
falsified by selecting an interpretation. Schildt wasn't writing for
creeps like you, he was writing for people with real jobs.
>
> >In fact, it's not a "block" until it is so delimited:
>
> On the contrary, the C99 standard uses "block" for something else.
Does it now. Care to specify what?
>
> > an
> >ungrouped set of statements is just an ungrouped set of statements,
> >and cannot be used in an if statement, for statement, or while without
> >the first statement (only) being controlled.
>
> Irrelevant.
>
> >But the really stunning error is "for example, the body of a function
> >is a compound statement". That is PRECISELY wrong.
>
> No, it's precisely right.
You flatter me by stealing my turns of phrase, dear boy.
>
> >The syntax of a
> >function declaration is
>
> irrelevant, since we're talking about function definitions here.
>
> function-definition :
> declaration-specifiers declarator declaration-list-opt
> compound-statement
>
> >separate from the syntax of if, for, and
> >while, each of which control a "statement",
>
> True.
>
> >which can be either a
> >simple statement, or a block.
>
> Actually, there are 6 things a statement can be in C99, none of which is
> a block. The term "simple statement" is not used.
Which doesn't mean the concept doesn't exist.
>
> >Writing this shows in fact you're incompetent, and have had no
> >experience, as Herb and I have had, in developing either a parser or a
> >compiler.
>
> Writing that shows that you're incompetent and ignorant, since I've
> written many parsers and compilers.
Have you now. So why did you so closely ape Seebach when you wrote
your vitriolic tirade?
>
> >What's not fine is for you, with no expert
> >standing,
>
> What you mean is that you're still too incompetent to figure out what my
> qualifications are.
I don't think they exist, or, it's possible you've been corrupted.
>
> >to maliciously attack a person's reputation and livelihood,
> >the reputation and livelihood of each of Herb's editors and technical
> >reviewers at McGraw-Hill, and that of anyone who disagrees with you.
>
> >It is civil and criminal libel.
>
> More nonsense.
>
> >## * Block scope begins with the opening { of a block and ends with
> >## its associated closing }.
> >"This is not true: while the scopes end as described, they begin, for
> >each identifier, at the end of its "declarator" (that is, at the
> >comma, equals sign, or semicolon after it is declared). This is
> >particularly important for identifiers with block scope."
>
> >If i is declared at the beginning of a block (as it must be in certain
> >dialects of the ill-defined mess C) then it's moot whether you say its
> >scope starts at the beginning of the block or at its definition.
>
> However, the important point is what happens when i is declared not at
> the beginning of a block.
>
> --
> Clive D.W. Feather, LL.M. (Edin) | Home: <cl...@davros.org>
> Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: <http://www.davros.org>
> Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: <cl...@davros.org>
> --
> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must
spinoza1111
> In message <clcm-20091222-0...@plethora.net>,spinoza1111
>
> have an appropriate newsgroups line in your header for your mail to be seen,
> or the newsgroup name in square brackets in the subject line. Sorry.
I am going to verify your relationship with Geoffrey Robertson QC, and
complain about your misuse of his authority here. He may very well
not be amused.
spinoza1111
Untrue. If sprintf is used to print a string that is an actual
parameter, there is no way of telling whether it will break. A check
for the string length can be added, but this check itself will fail if
there is no terminating Nul character at the end of the string, and
the string is at the upper bound of allocated memory.
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...@netfront.net ---
> --
> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must
Jasen Betts
Used correctly it will never break. eg:
int test(char * s){
char a[100];
sprintf(a,"%.99s",s);
return strlen(a);
}
If you don't have control of the format string then yeah that's
dangerous, but snprintf (where available) is little better if the user
can specify %n at any position in the format string.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
--
spinoza1111
Unacceptably so. And a format string of "%s" will break things if s is
too long. This exposure is unjustified by "efficiency".
> but snprintf (where available) is little better if the user
> can specify %n at any position in the format string.
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...@netfront.net ---
> --
> comp.lang.c.moderated - moderation address: c...@plethora.net -- you must
Dag-Erling Smørgrav
> The unix practise (it's spelled unix)
It's spelled UNIX, according to the current owners of the trademark (The
Open Group, previously X/Open), although it was originally intended to
be spelled Unix; the story of how this came to be is easily found on the
net (search terms: "UNIX small caps roff")
> is no more part of your C
> standard than is the stack (although in an extensive discussion last
> month, nobody was able to think of a way to replace the stack).
Your memory fails you -- or, more likely, you choose to disregard
arguments that conflict with your religious beliefs. I described a
stackless implementation of the Ackermann function, and referred to
programming languages that implement function calls without a stack,
such as Simula (which uses a tree of activation records stored on what
we, for lack of a better word, may call the heap) and Scheme (which
transforms certain types of recursive processes into iterative processes
at compile time).
FWIW, I *do* have a formal education in CS. One of my teachers was the
co-inventor of Simula and a Turing Award recipient, and I TAed for him
in program verification and type theory. Simula's activation record
mechanism was taught in several classes, including an introductory class
in compiler design, in which students were required to write a compiler
and virtual machine for a subset of Simula, and an intermediate class in
programming language theory (in which I also TAed).
DES
--
Dag-Erling Smørgrav - d...@des.no