Should we broaden the topicality of this group?
Richard Heathfield
should be construed as suggesting otherwise - where I say something like
"only <foo> is topical here", this should be read as if it said "only
<foo> and topicality discussions are topical here"!]
One of the (several) bugbears that haunts this group is the issue of
topicality. There appear to be several topicality camps within clc at the
moment, which I'll attempt to categorise as neutrally as I can manage.
I'll assign a name and a letter to each group in an attempt to make it
easier for us all to discuss the various camps.
Group P (Purists): only code that can be written entirely in K&R C, C90, or
C99 is topical here; where functions or symbols that are not defined by
the Standard are mentioned, the source code should be available, at least
in principle, and that source code should be written entirely in one of
the above "standard dialects". Citations from K&R, from either of the
ISO/IEC 9899 documents, or from drafts are all acceptable.
Group N (Neopurists): only code that can be written entirely in the latest
version of C is topical here; where functions or symbols that are not
defined by the Standard are mentioned, the source code should be
available, at least in principle, and that source code should be written
entirely in C99. Drafts of the Standard don't count, and any citation from
a draft is off-topic.
Group C (Conservatives): whilst the principal focus should be on standard
C, discussions of particular implementations and extensions for
illustrative purposes are acceptable.
Group M (Moderates): As well as standard C, common extensions should be
considered topical (e.g. those that are common in Windows (GUI and
console) and in Unix-a-likes).
Group X (eXperimentalists): These folks would like discussions of possible
changes and enhancements to the language to be considered topical.
Group L (Liberals): Anything written in a vaguely C-like syntax or in a
language based on C is topical (including C++, Objective-C, Java, and C#).
Group A (Anarchists): Anything and everything is topical, including device
drivers, Shrek, CD marker pens, jokes about viola players, and the
Metropolitan District of South Humberside.
At present, the majority of regular contributors fall into group P, or so
it seems to me, but all the other groups are represented here to a greater
or lesser degree.
Some fall into more than one camp - for example, at least one person (who
will remain nameless!) appears to be both a Neopurist and a Liberal (or
possibly a Moderate), despite the apparent contradiction between these
positions.
When deciding what is topical and what is not, we should remember that
comp.lang.c is *not* the only newsgroup in town. There are newsgroups for
discussing the language definition, POSIX, Windows, and individual
implementations. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that some people
gravitate towards comp.lang.c even though their discussion subject bears
little or no relation to standard C. Should we be sending these folks on,
or should we be answering their questions here?
I have carefully refrained from putting forward my own opinion, partly
because I should imagine that just about everyone who reads this already
knows what it is, and partly because I don't want this thread to get
bogged down until people have had a chance to think about the issues for
themselves.
Any topicality stance is bound to have advantages *and* disadvantages. So
please think carefully before weighing in too heavily in favour of a
particular stance!
Thanks. Over to you.
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
santosh
Well if a reasonably suitable and active group, or groups, that are better
suited to the question exist, then, IMHO, a redirection is appropriate. The
tricky issue is what to do when no suitable group exists, or that such a
group appears to be dead. In this case, if someone knows something that
might possibly help the poster, then a suitably qualified answer with
possible redirections to other places on the Net might not be too out of
line.
<snip>
> Any topicality stance is bound to have advantages *and* disadvantages. So
> please think carefully before weighing in too heavily in favour of a
> particular stance!
>
> Thanks. Over to you.
I might consider myself to be a member of group C and in my opinion, the
topics defined under groups P, N, and C should be topical to this group.
Spiros Bousbouras
> One of the (several) bugbears that haunts this group is the issue of
> topicality.
Personally I don't think that disagreements on topicality are
the real source of acrimony in this group. The reasons are probably
psychological. If this was a marriage the couple would visit a
marriage counsellor but since there's no such thing as a newsgroup
counsellor we'll just have to accept that the acrimony will
continue and all the metadiscussion in the world about topicality
isn't going to change that. I've seen situations in various
message boards where some of the regulars , perfectly respectable
and knowledgeable people in their own right , did not get along
with each other and metadiscussion didn't change anything. So I'll
probably stay out of the rest of this discussion since I cosnider
it pointless.
> <Large list snipped>
Joachim Schmitz
news:1191073728.8...@22g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On 29 Sep, 14:16, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>> One of the (several) bugbears that haunts this group is the issue of
>> topicality.
>
> Personally I don't think that disagreements on topicality are
> the real source of acrimony in this group.
Others are:
misunderstandings, mainly because english isn't everyone's native language.
rudeness
spam, and people quoting spam
trolls
in general: not knowing or caring about the netiquette
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette, http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1855
Bye, Jojo
Joachim Schmitz
news:Q4GdnReyhdEy0mPb...@bt.com...
...
> One of the (several) bugbears that haunts this group is the issue of
> topicality. There appear to be several topicality camps within clc at the
> moment, which I'll attempt to categorise as neutrally as I can manage.
> I'll assign a name and a letter to each group in an attempt to make it
> easier for us all to discuss the various camps.
> Thanks. Over to you.
I was really unsure how much of your post to quote or snip, without risking
being flamed all over the planet.
Let's hope for the best...
I'd vote against N (not enough compliant compilers around, if need be get a
group comp.lang.c99 created), X (comp.std.c is the group for this), L (There
are active groups available that deal with these topics and these topics are
too different from C) and A (would significantly affect the readbility and
S/N ratio here).
For X and L a _polite_ pointer to the relevant groups should do. I don't
care about politeness to Anarchists 8-).
Not sure about M (e.g. POSIX is at least a fully fledged standard, Windows
is not). I think a short (and polite) answer plus a redirect/pointer to an
appropriate group should be OK.
Leaves (for me) P and C.
Bye, Jojo
Justin Spahr-Summers
I don't weigh in on this newsgroup often, but I do pay attention to as
much of it as is possible, so I'd like to think that I do hold some
reasonable views on the subject.
I wholeheartedly agree that there are other places for X, L, and A...
the newsgroup name may be perhaps misleading to some of those in group
X, but, as others have said, a pointer to comp.std.c should be
sufficient.
Group M is a bit trickier. I would say that, in general, those posters
should be redirected to the appropriate newsgroup (if possible and if
anyone knows it); however, it seems that sometimes the regulars here
can be overzealous in pointing out off-topic posts. If a code example
given in a question simply CONTAINS references to some non-standard
extensions, but the question applies to other (standard) things, I'd
say it's very relevant here.
Out of the remaining three, I'd place myself most in group C. I don't
find a problem with providing much of anything (including non-
standard or non-portable examples) for illustrative purposes, because
it may provide someone reading the topic with some insight for the
future.
As for group N... while I personally try to make my code as C99-
conformant as possible, and take advantages of the new features it
provides when possible, I agree with Joachim that it's not completely
implemented in a large enough number of compilers and standard
libraries to be the ONLY possible discussion topic.
Besides my above mention of why I prefer group C to group P, I have
one more (slight) objection to raise to group P. Namely, it's been 17
years since C90... why should anyone still be encouraging K&R C styles
or providing examples in K&R C? As demonstrated from C99 (with the
removal of implicit int), more and more of it may become obsolete in
the future. I feel it's our responsibility to point this out to
posters who mention the C Programming Language (ed. 1) or give
examples that reek of K&R C. I'd like to have the same objection to
C90, but C99 just hasn't seen a lot of implementation - certainly not
enough to make C90 anywhere near obsolescent.
Joachim Schmitz
Newsbeitrag news:1191079423.1...@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> Besides my above mention of why I prefer group C to group P, I have
> one more (slight) objection to raise to group P. Namely, it's been 17
> years since C90... why should anyone still be encouraging K&R C styles
> or providing examples in K&R C?
off topic IMHO.
Where else should the person having such code ask for
help/insight/wehatever?
There's quite a difference between encourage and call something off topic.
Bye, Jojo
Harald van Dijk
> [Discussions of topicality are always topical. Nothing in this article
> should be construed as suggesting otherwise - where I say something like
> "only <foo> is topical here", this should be read as if it said "only
> <foo> and topicality discussions are topical here"!]
I consider discussions of topicality as off-topic here -- certainly, they
have nothing to do whatsoever with C -- but acceptable. There's plenty
that I don't think is inappropriate for this group, and plenty that I
think is off-topic for this group, but neither is a strict subset of the
other. Just something that might be worth considering; I don't believe
this is covered by your groups.
John Smith
> [Discussions of topicality are always topical. Nothing in this article
> should be construed as suggesting otherwise - where I say something like
> "only <foo> is topical here", this should be read as if it said "only
> <foo> and topicality discussions are topical here"!]
<snip>
>
> Any topicality stance is bound to have advantages *and* disadvantages. So
> please think carefully before weighing in too heavily in favour of a
> particular stance!
>
> Thanks. Over to you.
>
IMHO, setting strict limits on topicality is a futile exercise.
As a general principle why not just agree that any topic of
interest related to C programming is appropriate, otherwise
ignored? Marginally topical issues will inevitably be discussed
whatever formal guidelines are adopted.
JS
Stephen Sprunk
news:fdltab$gdl$1...@news2.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:16:42 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> [Discussions of topicality are always topical. Nothing in this article
>> should be construed as suggesting otherwise - where I say something like
>> "only <foo> is topical here", this should be read as if it said "only
>> <foo> and topicality discussions are topical here"!]
>
> I consider discussions of topicality as off-topic here -- certainly, they
> have nothing to do whatsoever with C -- but acceptable.
Topicality is always on topic.
Personally, I'm in group C; references to specific implementations
(including the DS9k) should be considered acceptable for _illustrative_
purposes. I can see the point of the P folks because it's a slippery slope,
but the educational value of providing examples of _why_ something is
nonportable outweighs the risk, IMHO.
It'd be a lot easier for me to join group P if there were comp.lang.c.posix
and comp.lang.c.windows. Shuffling people off to platform-specific groups
that are not specific to C and do not have the C expertise available here,
even if they do discuss C a lot by default, doesn't seem friendly.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Peter J. Holzer
> One of the (several) bugbears that haunts this group is the issue of
> topicality. There appear to be several topicality camps within clc at the
> moment, which I'll attempt to categorise as neutrally as I can manage.
> I'll assign a name and a letter to each group in an attempt to make it
> easier for us all to discuss the various camps.
> Group C (Conservatives): whilst the principal focus should be on standard
> C, discussions of particular implementations and extensions for
> illustrative purposes are acceptable.
> Group X (eXperimentalists): These folks would like discussions of possible
> changes and enhancements to the language to be considered topical.
I guess I'm mostly in group C, then, with occasional forays into group X.
Basically, I think the topic of this group should be "the language C in
the real world", as opposed to "the language C as described in the
standard", which is on-topic in comp.std.c. In the real world, C is a
group of dialects, and while the principal focus should be on elements
of the standard language, I see nothing wrong in discussing the
idiosyncracies of a specific dialect.
hp
--
_ | Peter J. Holzer | I know I'd be respectful of a pirate
|_|_) | Sysadmin WSR | with an emu on his shoulder.
| | | h...@hjp.at |
__/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Sam in "Freefall"
Peter J. Holzer
> Besides my above mention of why I prefer group C to group P, I have
> one more (slight) objection to raise to group P. Namely, it's been 17
> years since C90... why should anyone still be encouraging K&R C styles
> or providing examples in K&R C?
I don't think anybody should "encourage" K&R C, but I think it is
on-topic here, and if it's only to be able to discuss the history of C.
Flash Gordon
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:16:42 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> [Discussions of topicality are always topical. Nothing in this article
>> should be construed as suggesting otherwise - where I say something like
>> "only <foo> is topical here", this should be read as if it said "only
>> <foo> and topicality discussions are topical here"!]
>
> I consider discussions of topicality as off-topic here -- certainly, they
> have nothing to do whatsoever with C -- but acceptable.
There is a long standing convention that discussion of topicality is
always topical.
> There's plenty
> that I don't think is inappropriate for this group, and plenty that I
> think is off-topic for this group, but neither is a strict subset of the
> other. Just something that might be worth considering; I don't believe
> this is covered by your groups.
I consider pre-standard C to be topical, and C as defined by all
versions of the standard, including drafts (some implementations may
have been updated to be in line with a draft before the next version is
published).
I see nothing wrong with using real (or imaginary) implementations to
make a point. Sometimes even posting a snippet of assembler to
illustrate what optimisations a compiler can do is appropriate.
Questions asking "can you do X" or "is Y part of standard C" are always
acceptable in my opinion. The answer might be no, or only by using
extensions, but that is not a problem.
Questions about the Windows API or Unix extensions or extensions for
embedded systems I would not consider topical, since there are
groups/mailing-lists/web-forums focused on these things. The same
applies to instructions on how to install/use specific toolsets,
although the odd suggestion of switches to get better diagnostics is fine.
Questions about which toolset to use are marginally topical but probably
better dealt with on groups about the relevant OS. I'm unlikely to
complain about such discussions.
I see nothing wrong with providing an answer to a question I consider to
be off topic *provided* it includes a redirection to somewhere more
appropriate for the discussion to be continued.
I also don't mind the odd digression, although I reserve the right to be
a grumpy git at times.
--
Flash Gordon
pemo
<snip>
> Group P (Purists): only code that can be written entirely in K&R C, C90, or
> C99 is topical here; where functions or symbols that are not defined by
> the Standard are mentioned, the source code should be available, at least
> in principle, and that source code should be written entirely in one of
> the above "standard dialects". Citations from K&R, from either of the
> ISO/IEC 9899 documents, or from drafts are all acceptable.
>
> Group N (Neopurists): only code that can be written entirely in the latest
> version of C is topical here; where functions or symbols that are not
> defined by the Standard are mentioned, the source code should be
> available, at least in principle, and that source code should be written
> entirely in C99. Drafts of the Standard don't count, and any citation from
> a draft is off-topic.
>
> Group C (Conservatives): whilst the principal focus should be on standard
> C, discussions of particular implementations and extensions for
> illustrative purposes are acceptable.
>
> Group M (Moderates): As well as standard C, common extensions should be
> considered topical (e.g. those that are common in Windows (GUI and
> console) and in Unix-a-likes).
<snip>
My first thoughts are I'd like to go with P, N and M [does M include
C?]
However - isn't this purely academic? Nothing will change here IMHO.
Harald van Dijk
> "Harald van Dijk" <tru...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fdltab$gdl$1...@news2.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:16:42 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> [Discussions of topicality are always topical. Nothing in this article
>>> should be construed as suggesting otherwise - where I say something
>>> like "only <foo> is topical here", this should be read as if it said
>>> "only <foo> and topicality discussions are topical here"!]
>>
>> I consider discussions of topicality as off-topic here -- certainly,
>> they have nothing to do whatsoever with C -- but acceptable.
>
> Topicality is always on topic.
Topicality discussions are always appropriate on newsgroups, but they
rarely have anything to do with the topic of the groups. If you want to
call messages that do not relate to the topic of a group topical, go
ahead, but I don't think it's a good idea, so I won't.
Eric Sosman
> [...]
> I'll assign a name and a letter to each group in an attempt to make it
> easier for us all to discuss the various camps.
>
> Group N (Neopurists): [...]
> Group C (Conservatives): [...]
> Group M (Moderates): [...]
> Group X (eXperimentalists): [...]
> Group L (Liberals): [...]
> Group A (Anarchists): [...]
Group EAS (figure it out): A group of one who feels no sympathy
for what he perceives as a false dichotomy. (Eptachotomy?)
--
Eric Sosman
eso...@ieee-dot-org.invalid
Mark McIntyre
Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
<snip>
>Thanks. Over to you.
IMHO, given that several dozen other groups exist specialising in
windows, linux, databases, GUI programming, networking, etc etc etc
etc, the scope of this group is just fine.
--
Mark McIntyre
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
Malcolm McLean
>
> Group C (Conservatives): whilst the principal focus should be on standard
> C, discussions of particular implementations and extensions for
> illustrative purposes are acceptable.
>
Firstly what irritates some people is not so much the fact of off-topic
redirections as the tone. Supercilious references to "your particular
platform" when the particular platform is Windows don't always help. The
reality is that for many people Windows is computing, and no one likes to be
made to feel inferior because he doesn't have a nice Unix box to play with.
Then I don't think there is enough in the standard itself to sustain a
newsgroup. There is a limit to the amount you can say about padding and
bitfields. Nor, and this is strictly a personal view, do I find
standards-based threads the most useful.
If we are move away from the standard that implies some relaxation of
topicality. This implies a certain amount of commonsense. A thread about
linked lists is appropriate, but there comes a point at which data
structures become so specialised as to belong in comp.programming. However
it is not the end of the world if the line isn't always drawn exactly where
it ought to be. Similarly indscussion of particular compilers or development
environments. There comes a point at which the discussion ceases to be of
any interest to those who don't use those tools, however knowing that xcc
has a flag to turn on bounds checking and that it is implemented with triple
pointers is not that point.
Also quantity is important. For instance one poster to comp.programming used
to write about left-wing politics, though with some relation to programming.
A single thread on Marxist analysis of software development is OK, if there
are constant atempts to derail every programming discussion into politics
then it become wearing. The same goes for people's projects. We are
interested in hearing what you are working on, but not ad nauseum.
--
Free games and programming goodies.
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
Ian Collins
>
> Group C (Conservatives): whilst the principal focus should be on standard
> C, discussions of particular implementations and extensions for
> illustrative purposes are acceptable.
>
>
> Group X (eXperimentalists): These folks would like discussions of possible
> changes and enhancements to the language to be considered topical.
>
With a spot of this from time to time to liven things up.
The definition of C would open up the scope to include POSIX, provided
the appropriate links to the OpenSolaris or BSD source was included :)
--
Ian Collins.
Keith Thompson
[...]
> I see nothing wrong with providing an answer to a question I consider
> to be off topic *provided* it includes a redirection to somewhere more
> appropriate for the discussion to be continued.
A problem with that is that off-topic answers tend to lead to lengthy
off-topic discussions. I've seen too many cases where someone
provides an answer that is, for example, Unix-specific and wrong -- or
that somebody here incorrectly thinks is wrong. (Leaving bad
information uncorrected here just isn't going to happen, whether it's
topical or not.)
I suggest that a more effective strategy is to encourage the OP to
re-post the question in a more appropriate newsgroup. If I know the
answer, I can respond there, where my answer can be checked by (other)
experts.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Martien verbruggen
>
> When deciding what is topical and what is not, we should remember that
> comp.lang.c is *not* the only newsgroup in town. There are newsgroups for
> discussing the language definition, POSIX, Windows, and individual
> implementations. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that some people
> gravitate towards comp.lang.c even though their discussion subject bears
> little or no relation to standard C. Should we be sending these folks on,
> or should we be answering their questions here?
I think this is probably the most important criterion to keep in mind.
If there is already another place for these discussions, then it should
be moved on.
However, I do also believe that part of the problem stems from the way
in which these redirections are communicated, or, worse, not
communicated.
There are quite a few posts that simply state that something is
off-topic, with no help to the poster as to where to go instead. It
would greatly help if that information were included, where possible, in
the response post. A small paragraph with part of the answer, or even
the whole answer is probably ok as well, as long as it's accompanied by
the note that it's offtopic and where to find the better source of
information.
If you don't know the answer, and you don't know where a better forum
would be, and you're not feeling kindly dispositioned today, you should
probably refrain from answering at all.
If you do know the answer, or you think you do, and you know it's
off-topic, by all means, provide what you think is the answer, expand
the newsgroups header, set a follow-up, and say in your post that there
is a better forum to discuss this.
Positivie answers are generally better received than all-negative ones.
Martien
--
|
Martien Verbruggen | System Administration is a dirty job, but
| someone said I had to do it.
|
Flash Gordon
> Flash Gordon <sp...@flash-gordon.me.uk> writes:
> [...]
>> I see nothing wrong with providing an answer to a question I consider
>> to be off topic *provided* it includes a redirection to somewhere more
>> appropriate for the discussion to be continued.
> [...]
>
> A problem with that is that off-topic answers tend to lead to lengthy
> off-topic discussions. I've seen too many cases where someone
> provides an answer that is, for example, Unix-specific and wrong -- or
> that somebody here incorrectly thinks is wrong. (Leaving bad
> information uncorrected here just isn't going to happen, whether it's
> topical or not.)
If it is done with follow-ups set then by default the replies will go to
a group where it is topical. Although I will admit to having been guilty
of engaging in some of those off topic debates here, so I can see the
problem.
> I suggest that a more effective strategy is to encourage the OP to
> re-post the question in a more appropriate newsgroup. If I know the
> answer, I can respond there, where my answer can be checked by (other)
> experts.
Cross-posted with follow-ups set allows for that, although there is risk
of people ignoring the follow-ups.
I'm certainly less inclined to object to such a post than an off-topic
answer that does not also redirect discussion to a more appropriate place.
--
Flash Gordon
Jack Klein
> [Discussions of topicality are always topical. Nothing in this article
> should be construed as suggesting otherwise - where I say something like
> "only <foo> is topical here", this should be read as if it said "only
> <foo> and topicality discussions are topical here"!]
>
> One of the (several) bugbears that haunts this group is the issue of
> topicality. There appear to be several topicality camps within clc at the
> moment, which I'll attempt to categorise as neutrally as I can manage.
> I'll assign a name and a letter to each group in an attempt to make it
> easier for us all to discuss the various camps.
I haven't read all of the earlier replies yet, and it occurred to me
that I really did not want to do so before I expressed my own
"untainted" first impressions in a reply.
> Group P (Purists):
This should be the group's major thrust.
> Group N (Neopurists):
While I am a bigger fan of C99 than some here, perhaps including the
OP (hell, almost certainly including the OP), I would certainly be
against this path. Far too limiting, and as at least one reply has
already pointed out, too few C99 compilers available.
> Group C (Conservatives): whilst the principal focus should be on standard
> C, discussions of particular implementations and extensions for
> illustrative purposes are acceptable.
Or even references to code that might not be possible in standard C,
without source, but where the details are irrelevant and the actual
issue is proper C.
> Group M (Moderates): As well as standard C, common extensions should be
> considered topical (e.g. those that are common in Windows (GUI and
> console) and in Unix-a-likes).
I don't like this one, even if there were really a way to come up with
a reasonable definition of "common" that everyone could agree on. That
starts down the slippery slope that almost claimed comp.lang.c++ a
decade or so ago, as you pointed out in another thread.
> Group X (eXperimentalists): These folks would like discussions of possible
> changes and enhancements to the language to be considered topical.
I actually think this category should be welcomed far more warmly than
it is. There is a real difference between comp.lang.c and comp.std.c
when it comes to discussing possible future additions to the language.
Personally I would not mind seeing serious proposals from qualified
proposers (and that includes Jacob) for extensions to the language. I
think they actually belong in comp.lang.c before they belong anywhere
else.
As members of the C committee have pointed out, proposals for language
extensions and library additions have a much greater chance of being
taken seriously if they have wide support, and even more so if there
is a working implementation.
And I think comp.lang.c is the best place to find out if such
proposals have wide support. Plus feedback provided here could help
the proposer sharpen and fine-tune the proposal.
Then such a proposal could be made in comp.std.c with a pointer to the
discussion threads here.
> Group L (Liberals):
No way.
> Group A (Anarchists):
And again, no way.
So I'll have the P, with a side order of C and just a pinch of M. With
a little X for dessert.
--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://c-faq.com/
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.club.cc.cmu.edu/~ajo/docs/FAQ-acllc.html
Default User
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 11:28:25 -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> > "Harald van D?k" <tru...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:fdltab$gdl$1...@news2.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
> >> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:16:42 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >>> [Discussions of topicality are always topical. Nothing in this
> article >>> should be construed as suggesting otherwise - where I say
> something >>> like "only <foo> is topical here", this should be read
> as if it said >>> "only <foo> and topicality discussions are topical
> here"!]
> > >
> >> I consider discussions of topicality as off-topic here --
> certainly, >> they have nothing to do whatsoever with C -- but
> acceptable.
> >
> > Topicality is always on topic.
As it has to be. If you can't discuss what is and is not topical, there
there will be no off-topic posts.
> Topicality discussions are always appropriate on newsgroups, but they
> rarely have anything to do with the topic of the groups. If you want
> to call messages that do not relate to the topic of a group topical,
> go ahead, but I don't think it's a good idea, so I won't.
The usual term is "meta-topical".
Brian
Harald van Dijk
> Harald van Dijk wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 11:28:25 -0500, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>> > "Harald van D?k" <tru...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > news:fdltab$gdl$1...@news2.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
>> >> On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:16:42 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> >>> [Discussions of topicality are always topical. Nothing in this
>> article >>> should be construed as suggesting otherwise - where I say
>> something >>> like "only <foo> is topical here", this should be read as
>> if it said >>> "only <foo> and topicality discussions are topical
>> here"!]
>> > >
>> >> I consider discussions of topicality as off-topic here --
>> certainly, >> they have nothing to do whatsoever with C -- but
>> acceptable.
I'm not sure what happened here, but the quoting does not look right.
>> > Topicality is always on topic.
>
> As it has to be. If you can't discuss what is and is not topical, there
> there will be no off-topic posts.
Topicality doesn't have to be on topic to be able to discuss it, it just
has to be acceptable.
>> Topicality discussions are always appropriate on newsgroups, but they
>> rarely have anything to do with the topic of the groups. If you want to
>> call messages that do not relate to the topic of a group topical, go
>> ahead, but I don't think it's a good idea, so I won't.
>
> The usual term is "meta-topical".
Thanks, I've never seen it used before, but it seems like a good name to
me. So using that, messages can be topical, meta-topical, or off-topic?
Or do you qualify meta-topical as a subset of topical?
CBFalconer
> Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>
>> One of the (several) bugbears that haunts this group is the issue
>> of topicality. There appear to be several topicality camps within
>> clc at the moment, which I'll attempt to categorise as neutrally
>> as I can manage. I'll assign a name and a letter to each group in
>> an attempt to make it easier for us all to discuss the various camps.
> [...]
>> Group C (Conservatives): whilst the principal focus should be on
>> standard C, discussions of particular implementations and
>> extensions for illustrative purposes are acceptable.
> [...]
>> Group X (eXperimentalists): These folks would like discussions of
>> possible changes and enhancements to the language to be considered
>> topical.
>
> I guess I'm mostly in group C, then, with occasional forays into
> group X.
>
> Basically, I think the topic of this group should be "the language
> C in the real world", as opposed to "the language C as described
> in the standard", which is on-topic in comp.std.c. In the real
> world, C is a group of dialects, and while the principal focus
> should be on elements of the standard language, I see nothing
> wrong in discussing the idiosyncracies of a specific dialect.
The problem with that is that there is no standard of correctness,
and most threads would degenerate into fruitless arguments. Even
more than now. Don't forget the presence of comp.arch.embedded,
many Linux groups, the DJGPP group, many Windoze groups, etc.
--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Tor Rustad
[...]
Currently, I find the volume of posts in c.l.c too high.
Some threads, even if topical, should get killed without reading a
single message there. <gd&r>
--
Tor <torust [at] online [dot] no>
"This option is not intended to be useful; it exists only to satisfy
pedants who would otherwise claim that GNU CC fails to support the ANSI
standard..." -gcc manual
Default User
Wikipedia expresses it pretty well (entry on "meta"):
Meta (from Greek: μετά = "after", "beyond", "with"), is a prefix
used in English in order to indicate a concept which is an abstraction
from another concept, used to complete or add to the latter. The Greek
meta is equivalent to the Latin post.
In epistemology, the prefix meta- is used to mean about (its own
category). For example, metadata are data about data (who has produced
it, when, what format the data are in and so on). Similarly, metamemory
in psychology means an individual's knowledge about whether or not they
would remember something if they concentrated on recalling it.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta>
So "metatopical" could be considered topicality about topicality.
Brian
Default User
> Cross-posted with follow-ups set allows for that, although there is
> risk of people ignoring the follow-ups.
>
> I'm certainly less inclined to object to such a post than an
> off-topic answer that does not also redirect discussion to a more
> appropriate place.
I generally don't have any problem with that method. I dislike when
people answer it here, then set follow-ups to the new group.
Brian
Peter J. Holzer
> "Peter J. Holzer" wrote:
>> Basically, I think the topic of this group should be "the language
>> C in the real world", as opposed to "the language C as described
>> in the standard", which is on-topic in comp.std.c. In the real
>> world, C is a group of dialects, and while the principal focus
>> should be on elements of the standard language, I see nothing
>> wrong in discussing the idiosyncracies of a specific dialect.
>
> The problem with that is that there is no standard of correctness,
Where a standard of correctness is needed, conformance to C90 or C99 can
be used.
Army1987
> One of the (several) bugbears that haunts this group is the issue of
> topicality. There appear to be several topicality camps within clc at the
> moment, which I'll attempt to categorise as neutrally as I can manage.
> I'll assign a name and a letter to each group in an attempt to make it
> easier for us all to discuss the various camps.
>
> Group P (Purists): only code that can be written entirely in K&R C, C90, or
> C99 is topical here; where functions or symbols that are not defined by
> the Standard are mentioned, the source code should be available, at least
> in principle, and that source code should be written entirely in one of
> the above "standard dialects". Citations from K&R, from either of the
> ISO/IEC 9899 documents, or from drafts are all acceptable.
That's a bit too extreme, but if we replace the part after the
semicolon with "functions or symbols not defined by the Standard
can be mentioned only if their meaning is either self-evident or
clearly explained by the poster, and if the "core" of the matter
being discussed doesn't lie in them." it would be perfectly
reasonable.
>
> Group N (Neopurists): only code that can be written entirely in the latest
> version of C is topical here; where functions or symbols that are not
> defined by the Standard are mentioned, the source code should be
> available, at least in principle, and that source code should be written
> entirely in C99. Drafts of the Standard don't count, and any citation from
> a draft is off-topic.
The silliest thing about this, excluding the scarce availability
of C99 compilers, is that, since TC1, 2 and 3 have been accepted,
n1256 accurately reflects the *current* state of the Standard,
while the Real Thing is outdated.
> Group C (Conservatives): whilst the principal focus should be on standard
> C, discussions of particular implementations and extensions for
> illustrative purposes are acceptable.
Perfectly reasonable. Writing "assuming CHAR_BIT is 8 and we're
using the ASCII charset" shouldn't make a post OT, and neither
should "For example, on Unix-like systems..." as long as it is
really just an example.
> Group M (Moderates): As well as standard C, common extensions should be
> considered topical (e.g. those that are common in Windows (GUI and
> console) and in Unix-a-likes).
There already are NGs for these, right?
> Group X (eXperimentalists): These folks would like discussions of
> possible changes and enhancements to the language to be considered
> topical.
If they come across in a discussion about C-as-is, and the crux of
the matter doesn't become C-as-it-could-be, OK, but comp.std.c is
out there for a reason, isn't it?
> Group L (Liberals): Anything written in a vaguely C-like syntax or in a
> language based on C is topical (including C++, Objective-C, Java, and
> C#).
Ya kiddin'?
> Group A (Anarchists): Anything and everything is topical, including
> device drivers, Shrek, CD marker pens, jokes about viola players, and
> the Metropolitan District of South Humberside.
Well, no, but how comes that subthreads about the sign of complex
numbers or quantum physics survive much longer than any thread
starting with a mention of a POSIX function? :-)
> At present, the majority of regular contributors fall into group P, or
> so it seems to me, but all the other groups are represented here to a
> greater or lesser degree.
>
> Some fall into more than one camp - for example, at least one person
> (who will remain nameless!) appears to be both a Neopurist and a Liberal
> (or possibly a Moderate), despite the apparent contradiction between
> these positions.
>
> When deciding what is topical and what is not, we should remember that
> comp.lang.c is *not* the only newsgroup in town. There are newsgroups
> for discussing the language definition, POSIX, Windows, and individual
> implementations. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that some people
> gravitate towards comp.lang.c even though their discussion subject bears
> little or no relation to standard C. Should we be sending these folks
> on, or should we be answering their questions here?
>
> I have carefully refrained from putting forward my own opinion, partly
> because I should imagine that just about everyone who reads this already
> knows what it is, and partly because I don't want this thread to get
> bogged down until people have had a chance to think about the issues for
> themselves.
>
> Any topicality stance is bound to have advantages *and* disadvantages.
> So please think carefully before weighing in too heavily in favour of a
> particular stance!
Using common sense should in theory be a more accurate way to
decide what's topical than clause 1 of ISO/IEC 9899:1999, at
least for people who have some and know how to use it. Too bad
that not everybody does. ;-)
--
Army1987 (Replace "NOSPAM" with "email")
A hamburger is better than nothing.
Nothing is better than eternal happiness.
Therefore, a hamburger is better than eternal happiness.
Richard Tobin
Default User <defaul...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Meta (from Greek: [...] = "after", "beyond", "with"), is a prefix
>used in English in order to indicate a concept which is an abstraction
>from another concept, used to complete or add to the latter. The Greek
>meta is equivalent to the Latin post.
The original "meta-" word of this kind is metaphysics, which was the
name given to one of Aristotle's works. In that case, the meaning is
said to be "after", in that the work was taught after Aristotle's
"Physics".
The relation between the subject matter of Aristotle's Physics and
Metaphysics ("natural philosophy" and "ontological philosophy") has
probably influenced the use of the prefix in English as much as
meaning of the Greek prefix itself has.
-- Richard
--
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.
Chris Hills
<army...@NOSPAM.it> writes
>On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:16:42 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>The silliest thing about this, excluding the scarce availability
>of C99 compilers, is that, since TC1, 2 and 3 have been accepted,
>n1256 accurately reflects the *current* state of the Standard,
>while the Real Thing is outdated.
I agree. However C99 in general has not been implemented by the
industry. It is a mess.
>> Group M (Moderates): As well as standard C, common extensions should be
>> considered topical (e.g. those that are common in Windows (GUI and
>> console) and in Unix-a-likes).
I would put my self here.
>There already are NGs for these, right?
Yes but.... This NG should act as a place where C can be discussed. With
the current Net Nannies you cant, as some one said ask about spawn
because it is not standard. The others that did constructively discuss
the topic with the OP said you really need something like "system()" SO
after a little more cross platform discussion he was then pointed in to
an NG for specific in depth discussion. Which wasn't a Unix one where he
might have been sent for "spawn" thus everyone learns and more
importantly people get more of an idea about what is and is not portable
to their system. This is important as very few use just pure ISO C.
>> Group L (Liberals): Anything written in a vaguely C-like syntax or in a
>> language based on C is topical (including C++, Objective-C, Java, and
>> C#).
>Ya kiddin'?
I hope so..... That said we have occasionally had discussions that are
about C and C++ the trouble is the Net Nannies change the follow ups on
anything that mentions C++ (it is worse than Vampires and holy water :-)
so on more than one occasion a cross language discussion has been split
(often silently) and developed in to a C discussion on this NG and a
C-C++ discussion on the C++ NG where more sane and balanced people lurk.
>> Group A (Anarchists): Anything and everything is topical, including
>> device drivers, Shrek, CD marker pens, jokes about viola players, and
>> the Metropolitan District of South Humberside.
>Well, no, but how comes that subthreads about the sign of complex
>numbers or quantum physics survive much longer than any thread
>starting with a mention of a POSIX function? :-)
It is good to socialise some times.
>> When deciding what is topical and what is not, we should remember that
>> comp.lang.c is *not* the only newsgroup in town. There are newsgroups
>> for discussing the language definition, POSIX, Windows, and individual
>> implementations. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that some people
>> gravitate towards comp.lang.c even though their discussion subject bears
>> little or no relation to standard C. Should we be sending these folks
>> on, or should we be answering their questions here?
It depends. Some discussions eg the spawn/system discussion up to the
point where it starts to get in depth on platform specifics would be
useful here. Some things should politely be set to other NG's but not
with the refrain "we only discuss STD C here" We don't we discuss C.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch...@phaedsys.org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Richard
> In article <pan.2007.09.30....@NOSPAM.it>, Army1987
> <army...@NOSPAM.it> writes
>>On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:16:42 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>The silliest thing about this, excluding the scarce availability
>>of C99 compilers, is that, since TC1, 2 and 3 have been accepted,
>>n1256 accurately reflects the *current* state of the Standard,
>>while the Real Thing is outdated.
>
> I agree. However C99 in general has not been implemented by the
> industry. It is a mess.
>
>>> Group M (Moderates): As well as standard C, common extensions should be
>>> considered topical (e.g. those that are common in Windows (GUI and
>>> console) and in Unix-a-likes).
>
> I would put my self here.
Of course they should. "comp.lang.c". These extension should be
discussed in the context of ways of doing it in Standards compliant C. I
sometimes wonder what, if any, real systems the net nannys use and just
how different architectures their code is really ported to. Ditto for
subjects like asking programmers here their favorite tools, cross
platform or not, for making the most of the C programming language.
>
>>There already are NGs for these, right?
>
> Yes but.... This NG should act as a place where C can be
> discussed. With the current Net Nannies you cant, as some one said ask
> about spawn because it is not standard. The others that did
> constructively discuss the topic with the OP said you really need
> something like "system()" SO after a little more cross platform
> discussion he was then pointed in to an NG for specific in depth
> discussion. Which wasn't a Unix one where he might have been sent for
> "spawn" thus everyone learns and more importantly people get more of
> an idea about what is and is not portable to their system. This is
> important as very few use just pure ISO C.
And common sense.
>
>>> Group L (Liberals): Anything written in a vaguely C-like syntax or in a
>>> language based on C is topical (including C++, Objective-C, Java, and
>>> C#).
>>Ya kiddin'?
> I hope so..... That said we have occasionally had discussions that are
> about C and C++ the trouble is the Net Nannies change the follow ups
> on anything that mentions C++ (it is worse than Vampires and holy
> water :-)
I think I know why. The net nannies rarely seem to have any real world
experience. They spend hours learning the standard in order to play one
upsmanship.
> so on more than one occasion a cross language discussion has been
> split (often silently) and developed in to a C discussion on this NG
> and a C-C++ discussion on the C++ NG where more sane and balanced
> people lurk.
No two ways. I find the C++ group much more reasonable than CBF and
friends.
>
>
>>> Group A (Anarchists): Anything and everything is topical, including
>>> device drivers, Shrek, CD marker pens, jokes about viola players, and
>>> the Metropolitan District of South Humberside.
>>Well, no, but how comes that subthreads about the sign of complex
>>numbers or quantum physics survive much longer than any thread
>>starting with a mention of a POSIX function? :-)
>
> It is good to socialise some times.
>
>>> When deciding what is topical and what is not, we should remember that
>>> comp.lang.c is *not* the only newsgroup in town. There are newsgroups
>>> for discussing the language definition, POSIX, Windows, and individual
>>> implementations. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that some people
>>> gravitate towards comp.lang.c even though their discussion subject bears
>>> little or no relation to standard C. Should we be sending these folks
>>> on, or should we be answering their questions here?
>
> It depends. Some discussions eg the spawn/system discussion up to
> the point where it starts to get in depth on platform specifics would
> be useful here. Some things should politely be set to other NG's but
> not with the refrain "we only discuss STD C here" We don't we
> discuss C.
Good post. Balanced. Reasonable. Common sense.
CBFalconer
> CBFalconer <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Peter J. Holzer" wrote:
>>
>>> Basically, I think the topic of this group should be "the language
>>> C in the real world", as opposed to "the language C as described
>>> in the standard", which is on-topic in comp.std.c. In the real
>>> world, C is a group of dialects, and while the principal focus
>>> should be on elements of the standard language, I see nothing
>>> wrong in discussing the idiosyncracies of a specific dialect.
>>
>> The problem with that is that there is no standard of correctness,
>
> Where a standard of correctness is needed, conformance to C90 or
> C99 can be used.
Oh? You mean you recommend incorrect code?
Kenny McCormack
Chris Hills <ch...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
...
>It depends. Some discussions eg the spawn/system discussion up to the
>point where it starts to get in depth on platform specifics would be
>useful here. Some things should politely be set to other NG's but not
>with the refrain "we only discuss STD C here" We don't we discuss C.
Keep in mind that in the minds of the assholes^wnetNannies^wregulars
here, these are one and the same thing. Literally one-for-one
substitutions for each other.
Sane people, of course, realize otherwise.
Kenny McCormack
Richard <rgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>No two ways. I find the C++ group much more reasonable than CBF and
>friends.
Yes, CBF really is a piece of work. But RH and KT are not far behind,
albeit in their own ways.
Richard
No. KT is rigid but he is here for a reason - to spread the word on
standards compliant C. RH on the other hand seems to be here to
advertise how clever he is at every opportunity - two very different
things.
Chris Hills
>>>> Group L (Liberals): Anything written in a vaguely C-like syntax or in a
>>>> language based on C is topical (including C++, Objective-C, Java, and
>>>> C#).
>>>Ya kiddin'?
>> I hope so..... That said we have occasionally had discussions that are
>> about C and C++ the trouble is the Net Nannies change the follow ups
>> on anything that mentions C++ (it is worse than Vampires and holy
>> water :-)
>
>I think I know why. The net nannies rarely seem to have any real world
>experience. They spend hours learning the standard in order to play one
>upsmanship.
I have seen far too much of this pedantry and one upmanship....
People pedantry quoting chapter and verse in DRAFT UN-ISSUED documents
(because it is "close enough") but ignoring common real world use of the
language
>> so on more than one occasion a cross language discussion has been
>> split (often silently) and developed in to a C discussion on this NG
>> and a C-C++ discussion on the C++ NG where more sane and balanced
>> people lurk.
>
>No two ways. I find the C++ group much more reasonable than CBF and
>friends.
The problem was the more useful part of the discussion on c and C++ was
on the C++ group as it had silently disappeared from the C NG. Many on
the C group would not have seen this due to the unilateral censorship by
the Net Nannies.
>> It depends. Some discussions eg the spawn/system discussion up to
>> the point where it starts to get in depth on platform specifics would
>> be useful here. Some things should politely be set to other NG's but
>> not with the refrain "we only discuss STD C here" We don't we
>> discuss C.
>
>Good post. Balanced. Reasonable. Common sense.
Thanks. However you won't find "Common Sense" in Standard C :-)
Peter J. Holzer
> "Peter J. Holzer" wrote:
>> CBFalconer <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "Peter J. Holzer" wrote:
>>>
>>>> Basically, I think the topic of this group should be "the language
>>>> C in the real world", as opposed to "the language C as described
>>>> in the standard", which is on-topic in comp.std.c. In the real
>>>> world, C is a group of dialects, and while the principal focus
>>>> should be on elements of the standard language, I see nothing
>>>> wrong in discussing the idiosyncracies of a specific dialect.
>>>
>>> The problem with that is that there is no standard of correctness,
>>
>> Where a standard of correctness is needed, conformance to C90 or
>> C99 can be used.
>
> Oh? You mean you recommend incorrect code?
Where did I write anything about recommending code? The statement you
were responding to was (as you can still read above):
I see nothing wrong in discussing the idiosyncracies of a specific
dialect.
hp
Philip Potter
> One of the (several) bugbears that haunts this group is the issue of
> topicality. There appear to be several topicality camps within clc at the
> moment, which I'll attempt to categorise as neutrally as I can manage.
> I'll assign a name and a letter to each group in an attempt to make it
> easier for us all to discuss the various camps.
>
> Group P (Purists): only code that can be written entirely in K&R C, C90, or
>
> version of C
>
> C, discussions of particular implementations and extensions for
> illustrative purposes are acceptable.
>
> considered topical (e.g. those that are common in Windows (GUI and
> console) and in Unix-a-likes).
>
> changes and enhancements to the language to be considered topical.
>
> language based on C is topical (including C++, Objective-C, Java, and C#).
>
> drivers, Shrek, CD marker pens, jokes about viola players, and the
> Metropolitan District of South Humberside.
I don't feel that the topic is a problem, but how it is policed is.
Topicality breaches should not be clamped down on every single time, and
that topicality policing should both be friendly and explain properly to
the poster /why/ their post is offtopic and /where/ they can get the
info they seek.
On top of that, I think that simply mentioning an
implementation-specific feature or using it within a posted program
shouldn't be a crime, especially if it's obvious to that the problem is
a standard C problem. For example, consider the following program:
#include <conio.h>
#include <stdio.h>
int main(void) {
char *name = "David";
gotoxy(10,20);
printf("Hello, %c!\n",name);
return 0;
}
While it is not standard C, because it uses <conio.h> and gotoxy(), I
feel that the ideal response to this would be to politely explain that
implementation-specific features are offtopic but to point out the
problem anyway, because the problem here is in standard C code[1]. I do
/not/ think that redirection would be appropriate.
I think that topicality violators are often treated with a short temper
here, because the regulators are tired of such violations. However
because there are so many different people asking questions, it might be
their first time posting here and so simply shouting "Offtopic!" at them
will leave them bewildered and frustrated.
I also think it is childish that some posters will immediately jump on
anyone mentioning C++ or (horrors!) "C/C++". Questions about C++ are
offtopic. But simply mentioning these things is not. This problem is
even mentioned in the clc++ FAQ, question 5.4:
'Do not refer to "C/C++." Some people get testy about that, and will
(unfortunately!) ignore everything else you say just to correct you with
something like, "There is no such language." It borders on pathetic, but
you'll probably be okay if you say "C or C++" instead of "C/C++." Sigh.'
In short, while I would put myself into the C group above, I feel that
minor topicality infractions should be tolerated, and blatant ones
treated with patience.
[1] Unless gotoxy() never returns. In which case you can add this
condition to your reply.
--
Philip Potter pgp <at> doc.ic.ac.uk
Malcolm McLean
"Richard Tobin" <ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:fdo8l0
>>Meta (from Greek: [...] = "after", "beyond", "with"), is a prefix
>>used in English in order to indicate a concept which is an abstraction
>>from another concept, used to complete or add to the latter. The Greek
>>meta is equivalent to the Latin post.
>
> The original "meta-" word of this kind is metaphysics, which was the
> name given to one of Aristotle's works. In that case, the meaning is
> said to be "after", in that the work was taught after Aristotle's
> "Physics".
>
> The relation between the subject matter of Aristotle's Physics and
> Metaphysics ("natural philosophy" and "ontological philosophy") has
> probably influenced the use of the prefix in English as much as
> meaning of the Greek prefix itself has.
>
two volumes.
Now it means "applied to itself". You often need a meta-discussion about say
the medium of communication, or rules for functioning of the group. Or you
might want to do a meta-study about how scientists come to their
conclusions, or write a meta-language for describing other programming
languages.
"Metaphysics" is now an exception. It doesn't mean "physical things applied
to other physical things", but "what arises from the physical world but is
not of it".
Chris Hills
writes
>I don't feel that the topic is a problem, but how it is policed is.
>
>Topicality breaches should not be clamped down on every single time,
I agree absolutely. All it does is generate a lot of noise about
topicality.
> and that topicality policing should both be friendly and explain
>properly to the poster /why/ their post is offtopic and /where/ they
>can get the info they seek.
The problem is there is a SMALL group of Net Nannies who have an
artificially small definition of topicality that is at odds with a large
number of us...
It is at odds with a large number of people simply on observation of the
number of times they scream Off Topic!
>On top of that, I think that simply mentioning an
>implementation-specific feature or using it within a posted program
>shouldn't be a crime,
Absolutely. The Vast majority of people are programming in an
environment that is not pure ISO C
>While it is not standard C, because it uses <conio.h> and gotoxy(), I
>feel that the ideal response to this would be to politely explain that
>implementation-specific features are offtopic
This is where we disagree. The Implementation specific stuff is NOT Off
Topic.
Actually parts of ISO C would be OFF Topic as no one has implemented
them and are not actually used in reality :-)
> but to point out the problem anyway, because the problem here is in
>standard C code[1]. I do /not/ think that redirection would be
>appropriate.
I agree here. Look at the bigger picture not the pedantry. That is what
annoys many of us.
>I think that topicality violators are often treated with a short temper
here,
Yes.
>because the regulators are tired of such violations.
No, they are pedants with an artificially narrow view of what this NG is
about that annoys the majority.
>However because there are so many different people asking questions,
Precisely they majority have a different view of what is On topic than
the Net Nannies
> it might be their first time posting here and so simply shouting
>"Offtopic!" at them will leave them bewildered and frustrated.
Yes... And gets this NG a bad name.
>I also think it is childish that some posters will immediately jump on
>anyone mentioning C++ or (horrors!) "C/C++". Questions about C++ are
>offtopic. But simply mentioning these things is not. This problem is
>even mentioned in the clc++ FAQ, question 5.4:
I agree absolutely however It is important to mention that "C/C++" is
not a language and the two are separate. That is important. They
behave differently.
>'Do not refer to "C/C++." Some people get testy about that, and will
>(unfortunately!) ignore everything else you say just to correct you
>with something like, "There is no such language." It borders on
>pathetic, but you'll probably be okay if you say "C or C++" instead of
>"C/C++." Sigh.'
I think that you do have to explain that C ++ came off C90 and that C
and C++ have diverged since.
The problem I have is when the question is cross posted to the C and C++
NG's the Net Nannies will (often silently) stop the cross posting so
that people reading it in the C NG will not realise they are missing
half the discussion. Usually the less pedantic and more useful half.
>In short, while I would put myself into the C group above, I feel that
>minor topicality infractions should be tolerated, and blatant ones
>treated with patience.
I agree. A bit of toleration and stopping all the OT posts (and their
counters) will cut the noise to signal ratio a LOT and will improve this
NG's reputation in the world.
Keith Thompson
[...]
> Yes but.... This NG should act as a place where C can be
> discussed. With the current Net Nannies you cant, as some one said ask
> about spawn because it is not standard. The others that did
> constructively discuss the topic with the OP said you really need
> something like "system()" SO after a little more cross platform
> discussion he was then pointed in to an NG for specific in depth
> discussion. Which wasn't a Unix one where he might have been sent for
> "spawn" thus everyone learns and more importantly people get more of
> an idea about what is and is not portable to their system. This is
> important as very few use just pure ISO C.
Why would the OP have been sent to a Unix group to ask about "spawn"?
That's not a Unix function.
I don't remember the specific discussion, but IMHO a reasonable
response to someone asking about "spawn" would have been something
like:
The "spawn" function is not part of standard C. You'll get better
information if you ask in a newsgroup that discusses whatever
operating system you're using. The standard C function "system"
*might* server your purposes, but it's hard to tell without more
information about what you're trying to do.
If the OP asked something like "How do I use spawn", I might also
suggest that a better question would be "How do I do foo", where the
OP needs to replace "foo" with whatever goal he's trying to achieve
rather than assuming a specific solution.
And ideally, if the OP really did need information about "spawn", that
would be the end of it as far as comp.lang.c is concerned. Of course,
due to the asynchronous nature of Usenet, there will inevitably be
multiple replies saying more or less the same thing -- and perhaps one
or two trying to explain how to use "spawn" (with subtle errors)
without bothering to mention that it's not portable.
I'd try to provide a more specific redirection if I knew what system
provides "spawn" (I honestly don't), but surely the OP knows what
system he's using, and can find a more appropriate newsgroup or other
forum himself.
Keith Thompson
> People pedantry quoting chapter and verse in DRAFT UN-ISSUED
> documents (because it is "close enough") but ignoring common real
> world use of the language
I generally quote from n1256.pdf. This is not just a draft un-issued
document; it consists of the C99 standard as amended by TC1, TC2, and
TC3, all four of which are official documents issued by the ISO C
committee. I could construct a citation by using the official C99
standard and carefully cross-referencing the section number against
TC1, TC2, and TC3 (I have copies of all four documents), but it would
take several time as long, and I expect that the result would be
exactly the same -- except that it would introduce more opportunities
for error than just citing n1256. I trust the editors who produced
n1256 to have gotten it right; I see no point in re-doing their work.
In a critical context (say, where a contract requires strict standard
conformance), I'd go to the trouble of checking the actual standard
and the TCs (even if the TCs are excluded, I'd want to know about any
changes) -- but a Usenet post is not nearly that critical.
In cases where n1256 differs from C99, I mention it.
Do you *really* maintain that n1256 isn't good enough for citations in
the casual discussion that is comp.lang.c?
I know of exactly one person who commonly quotes from a pre-C99 draft,
n869, and I've complained about that myself.
[...]
> The problem was the more useful part of the discussion on c and C++
> was on the C++ group as it had silently disappeared from the C NG.
> Many on the C group would not have seen this due to the unilateral
> censorship by the Net Nannies.
I object to your use of the word "censorship". I am not able to
censor this newsgroup, and I wouldn't even if I could. Asking someone
to post something elsewhere is not censorship. If you're able to say
anything you like, you're not being censored.
And perhaps you could avoid the use of the term "Net Nannies", at
least in this thread. Richard H. tried to start, and I'm trying to
continue, a reasonable discussion; name-calling is not helpful.
Keith Thompson
> counters) will cut the noise to signal ratio a LOT and will improve
> this NG's reputation in the world.
I disagree. If nobody ever points out that some posts are off-topic,
this newsgroup will most likely become known as a place where you can
ask about anything with "C" in its name. (That may be an
exaggeration, but it's not much of one.)
I for one don't want this newsgroup to discuss POSIX-specific
functionality, or Windows-specific functionality, or C++ or C# or
Objective-C. There are *already* newsgroups for those things.
comp.lang.c is the *only* newsgroup for discussion of standard C; I
don't want to lose that.
I'll grant you that some of us are sometimes a bit too abrupt in
pointing out that something should be discussed elsewhere. Pretending
that some system-specific function doesn't exist is less than
constructive; if I happen to recognize the name "fork", for example,
I'll suggest posting to comp.unix.programmer rather than asking to see
the source code for "fork" in portable standard C. Insults are
inappropriate, except perhaps in the most blatant cases of abuse.
In my opinion, the trolls are a much bigger problem than the so-called
Net Nannies. There are several posters here whose only purpose in
life seems to be to complain, and who rarely if ever make any
technical contribution. (I certainly don't count you in that group,
Chris.)
Default User
> Topicality breaches should not be clamped down on every single time,
If it's not, then it gives the appearance of inconsistency or
arbitrariness.
> and that topicality policing should both be friendly and explain
> properly to the poster why their post is offtopic and where they can
> get the info they seek.
By and large, it is polite. I'll admit I don't like "What is your C
language question?" I've also complained in the past about the "willful
misaprehension" that some people use. Redirections should not be viewed
as an opportunity for comedy routines.
However, I find that such problems are relatively few. Most of the
redirections are professionally and politely done.
> On top of that, I think that simply mentioning an
> implementation-specific feature or using it within a posted program
> shouldn't be a crime, especially if it's obvious to that the problem
> is a standard C problem. For example, consider the following program:
Most of the time, the off-topic elements are pointed out and the real
problem diagnosed.
Brian
Chris Torek
Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>Group P (Purists) ...
>Group N (Neopurists) ...
>
>Group C (Conservatives): whilst the principal focus should be on standard
>C, discussions of particular implementations and extensions for
>illustrative purposes are acceptable.
>
>Group M (Moderates): As well as standard C, common extensions should be
>considered topical (e.g. those that are common in Windows (GUI and
>console) and in Unix-a-likes).
>
>Group L (Liberals) ...
>Group A (Anarchists) ...
Given the above set, I would put myself in group C with perhaps
even a hint or shade of group M. Of course, I am not sure I
agree with the set of groups in the first place, but for survey
purposes, I think placing me in "group C" is most appropriate. :-)
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Wind River Systems
Salt Lake City, UT, USA (40°39.22'N, 111°50.29'W) +1 801 277 2603
email: forget about it http://web.torek.net/torek/index.html
Reading email is like searching for food in the garbage, thanks to spammers.
Richard Heathfield
<snip>
>
> Given the above set, I would put myself in group C with perhaps
> even a hint or shade of group M. Of course, I am not sure I
> agree with the set of groups in the first place,
Neither am I, actually! But I wanted to give people /some/ kind of common
basis for discussing whether the topicality of the group should be
extended, and this seemed like a reasonable way to do that. If I'd spent a
few months thinking about the groupings, I could probably have done a far
better job. :-)
--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Philip Potter
> In article <fdon6r$b1t$1...@aioe.org>, Philip Potter <p...@see.sig.invalid>
> writes
>> feel that the ideal response to this would be to politely explain that
>> implementation-specific features are offtopic
>
> This is where we disagree. The Implementation specific stuff is NOT Off
> Topic.
It most certainly is.
>> I think that topicality violators are often treated with a short temper
> here,
>> because the regulators are tired of such violations.
> No, they are pedants with an artificially narrow view of what this NG is
> about that annoys the majority.
I happen to assume the best in people.
>> In short, while I would put myself into the C group above, I feel that
>> minor topicality infractions should be tolerated, and blatant ones
>> treated with patience.
>
> I agree. A bit of toleration and stopping all the OT posts (and their
> counters) will cut the noise to signal ratio a LOT and will improve this
> NG's reputation in the world.
You'll never stop /all/ the OT posts. I doubt you'll even get close.
Kenny McCormack
Peter J. Holzer <hjp-u...@hjp.at> wrote:
...
(The CBF troll wrote)
>> Oh? You mean you recommend incorrect code?
>
>Where did I write anything about recommending code? The statement you
>were responding to was (as you can still read above):
>
> I see nothing wrong in discussing the idiosyncracies of a specific
> dialect.
Please do not feed the troll.
Kenneth Brody
>
> "Richard Heathfield" <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote in message
> >
> > Group C (Conservatives): whilst the principal focus should be on standard
> > C, discussions of particular implementations and extensions for
> > illustrative purposes are acceptable.
> >
>
> Firstly what irritates some people is not so much the fact of off-topic
> redirections as the tone. Supercilious references to "your particular
> platform" when the particular platform is Windows don't always help. The
> reality is that for many people Windows is computing, and no one likes to be
> made to feel inferior because he doesn't have a nice Unix box to play with.
While I can only speak with certainty about my own posts, I don't
believe that others posting with "your particular platform"
references are trying to make the other person "feel inferior",
regardless of what "particular platform" is being referred to.
Rather, the purpose is to point out that this group isn't about
_any_ particular platform. In fact, most such replies probably
have nothing to do with it not being a "nice Unix box", as I
doubt the answer will be Unix-specific. More likely, the answer
will be DS9K-specific, which fits right into group "C"'s use of
such things for illustrative purposes. ("While your particular
platform may include a function clrscr() to clear the screen, on
my DS9K it is used for Commence Launch (Remote Systems Console
Request)".)
[...]
--
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
| Kenneth J. Brody | www.hvcomputer.com | #include |
| kenbrody/at\spamcop.net | www.fptech.com | <std_disclaimer.h> |
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
Don't e-mail me at: <mailto:ThisIsA...@gmail.com>
Kenneth Brody
>
> In article <pan.2007.09.30....@NOSPAM.it>, Army1987
> <army...@NOSPAM.it> writes
> >On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:16:42 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >> Group M (Moderates): As well as standard C, common extensions should be
> >> considered topical (e.g. those that are common in Windows (GUI and
> >> console) and in Unix-a-likes).
>
> I would put my self here.
>
> >There already are NGs for these, right?
>
> Yes but.... This NG should act as a place where C can be discussed. With
> the current Net Nannies you cant, as some one said ask about spawn
> because it is not standard.
Well, I agree that a discussion of spawn() is OT here in clc. The
fact that it is available on a "common" platform like *nix doesn't
really enter into it. It's not available on Windows, and I hate
to imagine what is does on the DS9K. Who gets to decide which
"common platforms" are topical and which arent? How "common"
must a platform be? Can every POSIX function be discussed?
Can we discuss using "raw mode" input on *nix, and getting the
status of the "Alt" key on Windows?
> The others that did constructively discuss
> the topic with the OP said you really need something like "system()"
And system() is on-topic here, AFAIK.
With something like spawn(), there are two "correct" paths that I
see. You can direct them to comp.unix.programming to discuss it
over there, or you can use your "outside of clc knowledge" to see
what the OP was trying to do, and direct them to a standard way of
accomplishing the task. Not every such discussion has a path to
topicality.
> SO
> after a little more cross platform discussion he was then pointed in to
> an NG for specific in depth discussion. Which wasn't a Unix one where he
> might have been sent for "spawn" thus everyone learns and more
> importantly people get more of an idea about what is and is not portable
> to their system. This is important as very few use just pure ISO C.
>
> >> Group L (Liberals): Anything written in a vaguely C-like syntax or in a
> >> language based on C is topical (including C++, Objective-C, Java, and
> >> C#).
> >Ya kiddin'?
> I hope so.....
I think he listed it because there are people who apparently fall
into that category, just as there are some who apparently fall into
group A.
[...]
> >> Group A (Anarchists): Anything and everything is topical, including
> >> device drivers, Shrek, CD marker pens, jokes about viola players, and
> >> the Metropolitan District of South Humberside.
Kenneth Brody
[...]
> Group C (Conservatives): whilst the principal focus should be on
> standard C, discussions of particular implementations and extensions
> for illustrative purposes are acceptable.
I'm not quite a purist (probably because I work in the POSIX world,
so "pure ISO C" isn't something I usually concern myself with), so
this one probably most closely fits my perceptions.
I also don't have a problem with code samples which refer to "non-
Standard" functions, as long as such functions are not the focus
of the discussion. (ie: a program which uses sockets, but which
is having a problem unrelated to the sockets, or a program which
calls "clrscr()" at the beginning, as long as the question isn't
"why doesn't this clear the screen".)
[...]
> Group X (eXperimentalists): These folks would like discussions of
> possible changes and enhancements to the language to be considered
> topical.
Is such discussion topical for comp.std.c? (I freely admit that I
do not hang out there.) If not, then discussion about the pros and
cons of a new feature may be topical here. If it is topical there,
then it probably belongs there.
CBFalconer
> CBFalconer <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> "Peter J. Holzer" wrote:
>>> CBFalconer <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> "Peter J. Holzer" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Basically, I think the topic of this group should be "the language
>>>>> C in the real world", as opposed to "the language C as described
>>>>> in the standard", which is on-topic in comp.std.c. In the real
>>>>> world, C is a group of dialects, and while the principal focus
>>>>> should be on elements of the standard language, I see nothing
>>>>> wrong in discussing the idiosyncracies of a specific dialect.
>>>>
>>>> The problem with that is that there is no standard of correctness,
>>>
>>> Where a standard of correctness is needed, conformance to C90 or
>>> C99 can be used.
>>
>> Oh? You mean you recommend incorrect code?
>
> Where did I write anything about recommending code? The statement you
> were responding to was (as you can still read above):
>
> I see nothing wrong in discussing the idiosyncracies of a specific
> dialect.
"idiosyncracies" are another word for "incorrect code", in that
such code will not compile and run correctly on any standard C
system. The point is that correctness is _always_ required. The
only available standard for such is the ISO standard(s).
If you really have a more restricted meaning in mind, such as
discussing how to rewrite something in 'idiosyncratic' code into
standard C, that is another matter.
Al Balmer
wrote:
>Precisely they majority have a different view of what is On topic than
>the Net Nannies
>
Perhaps I owe you an apology. I seem to have missed both the poll
which established that your view is the majority one, and the election
of you as the spokesman for the majority.
BTW, calling names is generally an indication that you've used up any
rational argument you might have.
--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ
Chris Hills
<cbfal...@yahoo.com> writes
>"Peter J. Holzer" wrote:
>> CBFalconer <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> "Peter J. Holzer" wrote:
>>>> CBFalconer <cbfal...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> "Peter J. Holzer" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Basically, I think the topic of this group should be "the language
>>>>>> C in the real world", as opposed to "the language C as described
>>>>>> in the standard", which is on-topic in comp.std.c. In the real
>>>>>> world, C is a group of dialects, and while the principal focus
>>>>>> should be on elements of the standard language, I see nothing
>>>>>> wrong in discussing the idiosyncracies of a specific dialect.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem with that is that there is no standard of correctness,
>>>>
>>>> Where a standard of correctness is needed, conformance to C90 or
>>>> C99 can be used.
>>>
>>> Oh? You mean you recommend incorrect code?
>>
>> Where did I write anything about recommending code? The statement you
>> were responding to was (as you can still read above):
>>
>> I see nothing wrong in discussing the idiosyncracies of a specific
>> dialect.
>
>"idiosyncracies" are another word for "incorrect code", in that
>such code will not compile and run correctly on any standard C
>system
There are no C compilers in the world. Non are fully C99 compliant and
have no extensions.
CBFalconer
I find it quite possible to compile standard C code on a
non-compliant compiler. However, code that compiles on that
(faulty) compiler is not necessarily compilable elsewhere. You
seem to have great confusion between cause and effect.
BTW, "gcc -W Wall -ansi -pedantic" comes fairly close to C95
compliance, and I expect very few problems porting code so compiled
elsewhere.
Chris Hills
<cbfal...@yahoo.com> writes
>>> "idiosyncracies" are another word for "incorrect code", in that
>>> such code will not compile and run correctly on any standard C
>>> system
>>
>> There are no C compilers in the world. Non are fully C99 compliant
>> and have no extensions.
>
>I find it quite possible to compile standard C code on a
>non-compliant compiler. However, code that compiles on that
>(faulty) compiler is not necessarily compilable elsewhere. You
>seem to have great confusion between cause and effect.
The compiler is NOT faulty. If you insist on that sort of stupidity
there is not a non faulty C compiler on the planet.
Also a pure ISO C compiler is of little use to most people. They NEED
the extensions in order to do efficient programs on most targets.
I wonder how people can get compilers for use on 61508 SIL3, 60601-1-4
and Do187B projects if these compilers are "faulty"
You seem completely at odds with the safety critical world and I know
which one I would bet my life on... let alone my money.
This is my problem with the small group of net nannies on here. They are
out of touch with reality.
Jean-Marc Bourguet
> One of the (several) bugbears that haunts this group is the issue of
> topicality. There appear to be several topicality camps within clc at the
> moment, which I'll attempt to categorise as neutrally as I can manage.
The title is already not neutral: some think that your groups P and N
(well, I don't identify anybody in this last group; well, I can see someone
playing as one as a way to show the absurdity of the position of Ps) are
trying to artificially restrict what is topical.
As I don't wan't to try to put myself under one of your label. I think
that this group should be about the C programming language as used in
practice while comp.std.c is for the theory.
In theory, theory and practice are the same, and so we need only one
newsgroup instead of two. In practice, they differ, so one has to accept
more: older standards, common extensions, things provided by some other
tools, relationship with other languages, common libraries (included OS
API).
Now, there is a problem. Where to put the limit? In what I've outlined
above, it seems to me that there are two potential source of abuse:
libraries and tools.
For sure, the configuration of the color of the cursor in the editor of
your IDE is out of topic. For sure, the interest of some non mandatory
warnings should be topical. And between the two there is a gray area for
which I'd have difficulty to define if I want it topical or not.
Likewise for the libraries. Pointing to gmp or similar libraries when
asked for arbitrary precision integer arithmetic is the thing to do.
Discussing XCrossingEvent should be done elsewhere.
I said there are gray areas that I'd have difficulty to classify. I'm
conscious of factor which increase the acceptability:
- there is no standard way of doing it
- the point is discussed while discussing other points more clearly topical
- the discussion has drifted
- the point is widely applicable (not in term of number of deployed
systems, more in term of number of C implementations).
Yours,
--
Jean-Marc
Philip Potter
> In article <4700C7B5...@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer
> <cbfal...@yahoo.com> writes
>>>> "idiosyncracies" are another word for "incorrect code", in that
>>>> such code will not compile and run correctly on any standard C
>>>> system
>>>
>>> There are no C compilers in the world. Non are fully C99 compliant
>>> and have no extensions.
>>
>> I find it quite possible to compile standard C code on a
>> non-compliant compiler. However, code that compiles on that
>> (faulty) compiler is not necessarily compilable elsewhere. You
>> seem to have great confusion between cause and effect.
>
> The compiler is NOT faulty. If you insist on that sort of stupidity
> there is not a non faulty C compiler on the planet.
>
> Also a pure ISO C compiler is of little use to most people. They NEED
> the extensions in order to do efficient programs on most targets.
Does the C standard require conforming compilers not to provide
extensions? I know you don't like people quoting from drafts, but n1256
- the latest draft of the C committee says in section 4.6:
"A conforming implementation may have extensions (including additional
library functions), provided they do not alter the behavior of any
strictly conforming program.[3]"
Where the footnote [3] says: "This implies that a conforming
implementation reserves no identifiers other than those explicitly
reserved in this International Standard."
I know the draft is not the standard, but I'm willing to bet that this
isn't new since C99. If you think that C99 /does/ prevent extensions,
please provide chapter and verse. (I don't have a copy of C99; nor do I
have any wish to purchase one.)
> I wonder how people can get compilers for use on 61508 SIL3, 60601-1-4
> and Do187B projects if these compilers are "faulty"
>
> You seem completely at odds with the safety critical world and I know
> which one I would bet my life on... let alone my money.
I don't think CBFalconer is at odds with the safety critical world by
simply saying "I find it quite possible to compile standard C code on a
non-compliant compiler."
> This is my problem with the small group of net nannies on here. They are
> out of touch with reality.
I am sympathetic with some (though not all) of your views with regards
to topicality and policing thereof, but if you insult people in this
group you will not get a decent debate out of them.
Shadowman
> "Richard Heathfield" <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote in message
>>
>> C, discussions of particular implementations and extensions for
>> illustrative purposes are acceptable.
>>
>
> Firstly what irritates some people is not so much the fact of off-topic
> redirections as the tone. Supercilious references to "your particular
> platform" when the particular platform is Windows don't always help. The
> reality is that for many people Windows is computing, and no one likes
> to be made to feel inferior because he doesn't have a nice Unix box to
> play with.
Perhaps one could borrow a line from Seinfeld? "If you're using Windows
(not that there's anything wrong with that)..." <G>
General Reply to the thread:
Although I'm more more of a lurker than contributor, I thought I'd weigh
in. I'd consider myself in the 'C' camp. I have no problem with
politely pointing people to another group when appropriate. But also I
think someone who has an answer for a slightly-off-topic question should
be welcome to chime in without the thread having to delve into a
100-post argument on topicality.
The problem with all of the meta-discussion is that it seems all of the
regular contributors are set in their opinions on topicality, and post
the same argument every time. Some interesting, but not topical (in a
'P' sense) threads have been hijacked by that discussion. The whole
thing seems counter-productive, really. An attempt to lessen the noise
in the group has had the opposite effect.
--
SM
rot13 for email
Richard
Philip Potter <p...@see.sig.invalid> writes:
> Chris Hills wrote:
>> In article <4700C7B5...@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer
>> <cbfal...@yahoo.com> writes
>>>>> "idiosyncracies" are another word for "incorrect code", in that
>>>>> such code will not compile and run correctly on any standard C
>>>>> system
>>>>
>>>> There are no C compilers in the world. Non are fully C99 compliant
>>>> and have no extensions.
>>>
>>> I find it quite possible to compile standard C code on a
>>> non-compliant compiler. However, code that compiles on that
>>> (faulty) compiler is not necessarily compilable elsewhere. You
>>> seem to have great confusion between cause and effect.
>>
>> The compiler is NOT faulty. If you insist on that sort of stupidity
>> there is not a non faulty C compiler on the planet.
>>
>> Also a pure ISO C compiler is of little use to most people. They
>> NEED the extensions in order to do efficient programs on most
>> targets.
>
> Does the C standard require conforming compilers not to provide
> extensions? I know you don't like people quoting from drafts, but
> n1256 - the latest draft of the C committee says in section 4.6:
This is the entire point. Confirming compilers DO provide extensions and
these extensions are used with standard compliant code. A good example
was the stat post yesterday. Nothing wrong with the C in that we didn't
NEED to know the definition of the stat stuct in order to correct the
mistakes. But as usual in comes a net nanny blustering about "stat is
off topic".
>
> I am sympathetic with some (though not all) of your views with regards
> to topicality and policing thereof, but if you insult people in this
> group you will not get a decent debate out of them.
How in any way is he insulting anyone by asking for some thought and
common sense before pronouncing things off topic? He has a very valid
point too - some (not all) of the noisiest net nannies seem to have
little experience of real code and real situations - and it is from
these situations that people come from for help. To expect someone to
sanitise their real problems into completely standards compliant code
without any "non standard" headers in order to get some help on one line
which COULD be standards compliant is daft.
I shed a tear when I see "How should WE know. We only only deal in ISO
C" when someone posts something like
#include <mstruct.h>
int main(){
struct mystruct m:
printf("%d\n",(void *)&m);
}
It is easy to help the poster.
Philip Potter
Well I didn't see the thread, but if what you say is correct (knowledge
of the stat struct was unnecessary to correct the mistakes) then
offtopic cries were more extreme than I would like. But here Chris Hills
is trying to say that a compiler which provides any extension at all is
not an ISO C compiler; which is false.
>> I am sympathetic with some (though not all) of your views with regards
>> to topicality and policing thereof, but if you insult people in this
>> group you will not get a decent debate out of them.
>
> How in any way is he insulting anyone by asking for some thought and
> common sense before pronouncing things off topic?
What a curious way of phrasing the question. I don't see anywhere in
Chris's post him asking for thought and common sense. I do see him
indirectly calling CBFalconer a "net nanny".
> He has a very valid
> point too - some (not all) of the noisiest net nannies seem to have
> little experience of real code and real situations - and it is from
> these situations that people come from for help.
I wouldn't agree, but we couldn't resolve this argument without naming
names, and I /really/ wish to avoid that.
> To expect someone to
> sanitise their real problems into completely standards compliant code
> without any "non standard" headers in order to get some help on one line
> which COULD be standards compliant is daft.
I agree.
> I shed a tear when I see "How should WE know. We only only deal in ISO
> C" when someone posts something like
>
> #include <mstruct.h>
>
> int main(){
>
> struct mystruct m:
>
> printf("%d\n",(void *)&m);
>
>
> }
>
> It is easy to help the poster.
I agree here too.
Chris Hills
writes
>sense) threads have been hijacked by that discussion. The whole thing
>seems counter-productive, really. An attempt to lessen the noise in
>the group has had the opposite effect.
My point exactly. If they stopped the OT rants and just helped the OP
whilst pointing out that some things are not portable (not that there is
anything wrong with non portable code for the majority) this NG would
have a LOT less noise and be a happier place
It will not disappear off into a mess as the real domain experts are in
other NG's and after the initial discussion from which we will all learn
the discussion will move there naturally.
Richard
Because CBFalconer is a net nanny. He enjoys nothing more that flaunting
the rules himself while lecturing others on how and what to post.
>
>> He has a very valid
>> point too - some (not all) of the noisiest net nannies seem to have
>> little experience of real code and real situations - and it is from
>> these situations that people come from for help.
>
> I wouldn't agree, but we couldn't resolve this argument without naming
> names, and I /really/ wish to avoid that.
>
>> To expect someone to
>> sanitise their real problems into completely standards compliant code
>> without any "non standard" headers in order to get some help on one line
>> which COULD be standards compliant is daft.
>
> I agree.
That is the entire crux of the issue.
>
>> I shed a tear when I see "How should WE know. We only only deal in ISO
>> C" when someone posts something like
>>
>> #include <mstruct.h>
>>
>> int main(){
>>
>> struct mystruct m:
>> printf("%d\n",(void *)&m);
>>
>>
>> }
>>
>> It is easy to help the poster.
>
> I agree here too.
Then you are on Chris Hill's side too for the most part.
Chris Hills
writes
>Richard wrote:
>> Philip Potter <p...@see.sig.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> Chris Hills wrote:
>>>> In article <4700C7B5...@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer
>>>> <cbfal...@yahoo.com> writes
>>>>> non-compliant compiler. However, code that compiles on that
>>>>> (faulty) compiler is not necessarily compilable elsewhere. You
>>>>> seem to have great confusion between cause and effect.
>cries were more extreme than I would like. But here Chris Hills is
>trying to say that a compiler which provides any extension at all is
>not an ISO C compiler; which is false.
CBF was saying that the compiler that compiles non standard code is
"faulty". Which means there are no C compilers however as you point out
the ISO standard does let you have extensions. And in self hosted
environments all sorts of other things CBF get hot under the collar
about.
>>> I am sympathetic with some (though not all) of your views with regards
>>> to topicality and policing thereof, but if you insult people in this
>>> group you will not get a decent debate out of them.
>> How in any way is he insulting anyone by asking for some thought and
>> common sense before pronouncing things off topic?
>
>What a curious way of phrasing the question. I don't see anywhere in
>Chris's post him asking for thought and common sense.
I want to be able to discuss C as it is used. Which is Not pure ISO C.
If you want to discus just pure ISO C go to comp.std.c
in C.L.C if they stopped shouting OT every two minutes we wouldn't have
the arguments and we could disuse things like how to call another
program for C which should highlight there is not standard way of doing
it and get a useful exchange of views on how to do it in various
environment which benefits all.
It would also help if the net nannies looked at the C problem being
asked without ranting "not proper C" for every line of C that is posted
here when it is not specific to the actual point in discussion.
If some on has conio.h so what if it is not central to the question.
Even it if it is central it will help to point out it is not
portable....
Because people pick up source to use from all over the place some people
try using conio.h in a UNIX environment or spawn in windows and wonder
why it does not work. Education and assistance not "OFF TOPIC " or "i
dnot recognise it because it is not standard C" are pointless.
> I do see him indirectly calling CBFalconer a "net nanny".
My mistake... it should not have been an indirect but a direct call :-)
>> To expect someone to
>> sanitise their real problems into completely standards compliant code
>> without any "non standard" headers in order to get some help on one line
>> which COULD be standards compliant is daft.
>
>I agree.
>> I shed a tear when I see "How should WE know. We only only deal in ISO
>> C" when someone posts something like
>> #include <mstruct.h>
>> int main(){
>> struct mystruct m:
>> printf("%d\n",(void *)&m);
>> }
>> It is easy to help the poster.
>I agree here too.
So we all agree then.
If they stop this sort of messing about and OFF TOPIC posts most of the
problems would go away.
I am not sure what they are trying to achieve with their pedantry . It
certainly seems counter productive with their stated aims.
Al Balmer
wrote:
>As I don't wan't to try to put myself under one of your label. I think
>that this group should be about the C programming language as used in
>practice while comp.std.c is for the theory.
You are misinformed about what c.s.c. is for, as well. It's for
discussion of the standard itself. Discussion about theory of
programming or theory of languages doesn't really belong in either
group.
The C programming language as used in practice is certainly topical
here, but peculiarities of particular implementations and extensions
are not. Part of the reason is that most of these have more
appropriate groups, where better information is available. Why would
you want to deprive someone of the best venue for their question or
problem? Isn't it better to say "Sorry, this is a kosher shop and we
don't serve ham sandwiches. I suggest the German Deli next door."
<OT>(With memories of a German deli next door which made wonderful
sandwiches from what seemed like dozens of varieties of ham <g>.)</OT>
Philip Potter
> CBF was saying that the compiler that compiles non standard code is
> "faulty".
The only place in this subthread where CBF used the word "faulty" was
the following:
>>>>> In article <4700C7B5...@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer
>>>>> <cbfal...@yahoo.com> writes
>>>>>> I find it quite possible to compile standard C code on a
>>>>>> non-compliant compiler. However, code that compiles on that
>>>>>> (faulty) compiler is not necessarily compilable elsewhere. You
It seems to me that he is saying that non-compliant compilers are
faulty. I see nothing wrong with this point of view. The context
suggested that he may have (mistakenly) considered a compiler with
extensions to be nonconforming, but I'm sure that he agrees with the
standard that compilers may implement extensions if they like.
>>>> I am sympathetic with some (though not all) of your views with regards
>>>> to topicality and policing thereof, but if you insult people in this
>>>> group you will not get a decent debate out of them.
>>> How in any way is he insulting anyone by asking for some thought and
>>> common sense before pronouncing things off topic?
>>
>> What a curious way of phrasing the question. I don't see anywhere in
>> Chris's post him asking for thought and common sense.
>
> I want to be able to discuss C as it is used. Which is Not pure ISO C.
> If you want to discus just pure ISO C go to comp.std.c
...where you will definitely be offtopic, because there is a difference
between discussing standard C and discussing the C standard. Pure ISO C
is and should be on topic here.
> in C.L.C if they stopped shouting OT every two minutes we wouldn't have
> the arguments and we could disuse things like how to call another
> program for C which should highlight there is not standard way of doing
> it and get a useful exchange of views on how to do it in various
> environment which benefits all.
>
> It would also help if the net nannies looked at the C problem being
> asked without ranting "not proper C" for every line of C that is posted
> here when it is not specific to the actual point in discussion.
It is useful to point out that conio.h and friends are not standard C
(though I'm not sure I would say they're not "proper"). But if this
prevents a poster from answering the original question, that is bad.
> If some on has conio.h so what if it is not central to the question.
> Even it if it is central it will help to point out it is not portable....
>
> Because people pick up source to use from all over the place some people
> try using conio.h in a UNIX environment or spawn in windows and wonder
> why it does not work. Education and assistance not "OFF TOPIC " or "i
> dnot recognise it because it is not standard C" are pointless.
I agree here.
>> I do see him indirectly calling CBFalconer a "net nanny".
>
> My mistake... it should not have been an indirect but a direct call :-)
Either way, it's just name-calling.
> So we all agree then.
>
> If they stop this sort of messing about and OFF TOPIC posts most of the
> problems would go away.
>
> I am not sure what they are trying to achieve with their pedantry . It
> certainly seems counter productive with their stated aims.
Pedantry is good in moderation. Anyway, I'm rapidly coming to the
conclusion that this problem may not be as big as I imagine it. It's
difficult to analyse the amount of overzealous netcoppery from personal
experience, because of selective memory...
Harald van Dijk
> There are no C compilers in the world. Non are fully C99 compliant and
> have no extensions.
There are fully C99 conforming implementations, and implementations are
allowed to have extensions so long as they don't affect "correct"
programs.
Charlton Wilbur
AB> The C programming language as used in practice is certainly
AB> topical here, but peculiarities of particular implementations
AB> and extensions are not. Part of the reason is that most of
AB> these have more appropriate groups, where better information
AB> is available. Why would you want to deprive someone of the
AB> best venue for their question or problem?
This is pretty close to my view of it as well.
If there's a forum devoted to the specific area involved - such as
POSIX and its penumbra, in comp.unix.programmer - then it should be
discussed there, and not in comp.lang.c.
And I concur with the opinion expressed elsethread - the majority of
the problem here does not come from people who redirect querents
elsewhere, but with the people the majority of whose posts in the
group serve only to attack the people doing the redirection.
Charlton
--
Charlton Wilbur
cwi...@chromatico.net
Kenny McCormack
Chris Hills <ch...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk> wrote:
...
>If they stop this sort of messing about and OFF TOPIC posts most of the
>problems would go away.
>
>I am not sure what they are trying to achieve with their pedantry . It
>certainly seems counter productive with their stated aims.
You might just as well ask why people post to Usenet at all. Obviously,
because it fills some sort of psychological need of theirs. It makes
them feel good about themselves. In short, it provides an "ego boo".
The Net Nannies here just seem to have a particularly virulent strain of
it. It says a lot about what they must be like in real life.
user923005
> In article <47002528.B0495...@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer
> <cbfalco...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Peter J. Holzer" wrote:
> >>>>> "Peter J. Holzer" wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Basically, I think the topic of this group should be "the language
> >>>>>> C in the real world", as opposed to "the language C as described
> >>>>>> in the standard", which is on-topic in comp.std.c. In the real
> >>>>>> world, C is a group of dialects, and while the principal focus
> >>>>>> should be on elements of the standard language, I see nothing
> >>>>>> wrong in discussing the idiosyncracies of a specific dialect.
>
> >>>>> The problem with that is that there is no standard of correctness,
>
> >>>> Where a standard of correctness is needed, conformance to C90 or
> >>>> C99 can be used.
>
> >>> Oh? You mean you recommend incorrect code?
>
> >> Where did I write anything about recommending code? The statement you
> >> were responding to was (as you can still read above):
>
> >> I see nothing wrong in discussing the idiosyncracies of a specific
> >> dialect.
>
> >"idiosyncracies" are another word for "incorrect code", in that
> >such code will not compile and run correctly on any standard C
> >system
>
> There are no C compilers in the world. Non are fully C99 compliant and
> have no extensions.
There probably does not exist a c90 compiler either, since every large
software system has bugs in it.
On the other hand, talking about windows message handlers or fork() or
lib$spawn() have other places for them.
I would think that something is not topical if it has a better place.
I do think that some of the regulars are occasionally very curt with
beginners. It would be better to gently redirect them to the proper
forum than just to issue the "off topic" mandate without any
clarification. I guess that people who post here asking about how to
initialize a thread simply do not know how to find the right group, or
they would have done that in the first place. So I suggest that (to
the degree possible allowed by our character) we should all subscribe
to the "Tanmoy Bhattacharya school of manners". Which is to say
(simply put) that we should be as polite as possible. I think we can
all agree that both Tanmoy and Dan Pop had incredible knowledge of the
C language. But Tanmoy's manner of deflection was (in my opinion)
superior to Dan Pop's. I think that we tend to navigate to the Dan
Pop "Slam the door in the newbie's face" school of graciousness simply
because it tends to be easier.
Jean-Marc Bourguet
> On 01 Oct 2007 14:37:24 +0200, Jean-Marc Bourguet <j...@bourguet.org>
> wrote:
>
> >As I don't wan't to try to put myself under one of your label. I think
> >that this group should be about the C programming language as used in
> >practice while comp.std.c is for the theory.
>
> You are misinformed about what c.s.c. is for, as well.
I didn't write about what csc or clc are for, I wrote about what I think
they should be for.
> It's for discussion of the standard itself.
It doesn't seem there are a lot of discussion about the typesetting, the
choice of paper and so on in that group.
> Discussion about theory of programming or theory of languages doesn't
> really belong in either group.
I never meant that. And I wonder how you could think I meant that. Is
there something lacking in my english expression or did you play some
language trick like I tried just above?
> The C programming language as used in practice is certainly topical
> here, but peculiarities of particular implementations and extensions
> are not.
They aren't used in your practice? In my practice, I've yet to see any
program of importance be done without relying on guarantees which aren't
made by the standard.
> Part of the reason is that most of these have more appropriate groups,
> where better information is available. Why would you want to deprive
> someone of the best venue for their question or problem?
Where did you get that I want to deprive someone of the best venue for
their question or problem? I just wrote that I though there are questions
outside the standard C for which this group should be the best venue. I
don't want discussion about the meaning of XCrossingEvent or the details of
a given function of gmp. But I've no problem with a discussion about cross
platform GUI API for C or about the different arbitrary precision libraries
available.
Yours,
--
Jean-Marc
Alan Curry
Shadowman <funqbj...@pbzpnfg.arg> wrote:
>
>Although I'm more more of a lurker than contributor, I thought I'd weigh
>in. I'd consider myself in the 'C' camp. I have no problem with
>politely pointing people to another group when appropriate. But also I
>think someone who has an answer for a slightly-off-topic question should
>be welcome to chime in without the thread having to delve into a
>100-post argument on topicality.
>
>The problem with all of the meta-discussion is that it seems all of the
>regular contributors are set in their opinions on topicality, and post
>the same argument every time. Some interesting, but not topical (in a
>'P' sense) threads have been hijacked by that discussion. The whole
>thing seems counter-productive, really. An attempt to lessen the noise
>in the group has had the opposite effect.
I heartily endorse this event or product.
The problem isn't that some people are using the group "incorrectly". It's
that there are regulars who pump out dozens of posts every day arguing about
it. They're more interested in talking about each other than about C
programming, as proven by the existence of this thread. Inventing categories
to classify people by their idea of correct usage of the newsgroup... blech.
What if that much effort had gone into writing something interesting instead?
I shall now attempt to do the reverse: hijack a stupid wasteful meta-thread
with actual C content.
There is a header file foo.h, which defines a macro like this:
#define MAGIC_CHARACTER 'x'
The main program #includes foo.h and does some stuff that depends on which
character is selected to be magic. The intent is that the user can change the
x in the header file and recompile to get a different result.
I would like to create a log file whose name contains the magic character. If
MAGIC_CHARACTER had been defined as a string ("x" instead of 'x') I could do
this:
logfp=fopen(MAGIC_CHARACTER ".log", "w");
and the adjacent strings would be merged into one string to make the
filename. But since MAGIC_CHARACTER is not a string, that won't work. I have
to build the string at runtime using sprintf or something similar. Changing
it to a string would disrupt all the other uses of the macro, so that's
undesirable.
So here's the challenge: given a macro which expands to a character constant,
build a string literal which contains that character. I can't think of a way
to do it, and if it's not possible, it feels like a hole in the language. (If
we can do compile-time concatenation of 2 strings, why not a string and a
single character?)
--
Alan Curry
pac...@world.std.com
Keith Thompson
> "Richard Heathfield" <r...@see.sig.invalid> wrote in message
>>
>> Group C (Conservatives): whilst the principal focus should be on standard
>> C, discussions of particular implementations and extensions for
>> illustrative purposes are acceptable.
>>
> I'll vote for C.
>
> Firstly what irritates some people is not so much the fact of
> off-topic redirections as the tone. Supercilious references to "your
> particular platform" when the particular platform is Windows don't
> always help. The reality is that for many people Windows is computing,
> and no one likes to be made to feel inferior because he doesn't have a
> nice Unix box to play with.
Discussions of how horribly bad Windows is (either inherently or in
comparison to Unix), and about Microsoft being the Great Satan, or at
least the source of all buffer overflows, is certainly off-topic.
This is not the place for OS flame wars.
But referring to Windows as "your particular platform" is perfectly
appropriate, since that's exactly what it is. Unless there's more
context than that, I see nothing supercilious about it.
It's probably true that "for many people Windows is computing". We do
those people no favors by letting them continue to hold that belief.
Even someone who is never going to program under any system other than
MS Windows should understand that it's just one operating system among
many.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) ks...@mib.org <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
Keith Thompson
> In article <fdqtu1$bjm$1...@aioe.org>, Shadowman
> <funqbj...@pbzpnfg.arg> writes
>> sense) threads have been hijacked by that discussion. The whole
>> thing seems counter-productive, really. An attempt to lessen the
>> noise in the group has had the opposite effect.
>
> My point exactly. If they stopped the OT rants and just helped the OP
> whilst pointing out that some things are not portable (not that there
> is anything wrong with non portable code for the majority) this NG
> would have a LOT less noise and be a happier place
>
> It will not disappear off into a mess as the real domain experts are
> in other NG's and after the initial discussion from which we will all
> learn the discussion will move there naturally.
And how exactly do you know that? The past history of comp.lang.c++
suggests that it most likely *would* decline into a chaotic mess,
where actual discussion of the language as defined by the standard
(for which *there is no other newsgroup*) would either be lost in the
noise or would vanish almost entirely, as the experts get tired and
leave.
(There's one other newsgroup that discusses standard C, namely
comp.lang.c.moderated. But the latency there is far too long for
meaningful discussion. The interval between posting a question and
getting a response can be weeks, whereas here it's typically measured
in hours, or even minutes.)
On the other hand, if the trolls would stop trolling, and if certain
non-trolls would stop complaining about attempts to encourage
topicality, I believe that the signal-to-noise would improve
dramatically.
Keith Thompson
[...]
> There are no C compilers in the world. Non are fully C99 compliant and
> have no extensions.
Extensions are, of course, specifically permitted by the standard.
I understand that there are a few C compilers that fully support C99,
modulo bugs. (I doubt that any compiler for any language is entirely
bug-free.)
We consider C95 and C90 to be topical here, and I don't remember
anyone *seriously* suggesting that we shouldn't. There are plenty of
compilers that conform reasonably well to C90 or C95, modulo bugs.
Keith Thompson
> In article <4700C7B5...@yahoo.com>, CBFalconer
> <cbfal...@yahoo.com> writes
>>> There are no C compilers in the world. Non are fully C99 compliant
>>> and have no extensions.
>>
>>I find it quite possible to compile standard C code on a
>>non-compliant compiler. However, code that compiles on that
>>(faulty) compiler is not necessarily compilable elsewhere. You
>>seem to have great confusion between cause and effect.
>
> The compiler is NOT faulty. If you insist on that sort of stupidity
> there is not a non faulty C compiler on the planet.
Obviously the standard allows extensions. Either Chuck made a fairly
simple error, or you've misinterpreted what he wrote. Please don't
base an argument about topicality on one small mistake.
Standard C permits extensions, with certain restrictions. The
existence of such extensions is certainly topical. Questions about
whether a given extension is permitted by the standard are topical.
The details of how to use a given extension are not.
> Also a pure ISO C compiler is of little use to most people. They NEED
> the extensions in order to do efficient programs on most targets.
They also NEED an operating system, and a text editor or IDE or
whatever, and a chair to sit in while they program. That doesn't make
any of those things topical in comp.lang.c.
> I wonder how people can get compilers for use on 61508 SIL3,
> 60601-1-4
> and Do187B projects if these compilers are "faulty"
I have no idea. I don't happen to know what 61508 SIL3, 60601-1-4,
and Do187B are. I do know a lot about C, which is the topic of this
newsgroup.
> You seem completely at odds with the safety critical world and I know
> which one I would bet my life on... let alone my money.
>
> This is my problem with the small group of net nannies on here. They
> are out of touch with reality.
*Please* stop using the insulting term "net nannies". I'm very
interested in having this discussion with you, but I will cease doing
so if you continue with the insults.
This newsgroup does not attempt to discuss all of "reality". It
discusses the C programming language, which is defined by the ISO
standard(s). Suggesting that a system-specific issue should be
discussed elsewhere does *not* imply that that issue is unimportant or
unreal.
I wouldn't attempt to talk about 61508 SIL3, 60601-1-4, or Do187B here
(partly because I don't know anything about them), and I hope you
wouldn't either (even though you presumably do know about them).
Malcolm McLean
"user923005" <dco...@connx.com> wrote in message
news:1191267318....@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> I think we can all agree that both Tanmoy and Dan Pop had incredible
> knowledge of the C language.
>
--
Free games and programming goodies.
http://www.personal.leeds.ac.uk/~bgy1mm
Malcolm McLean
>
> I want to be able to discuss C as it is used. Which is Not pure ISO C. If
> you want to discus just pure ISO C go to comp.std.c
>
those which are parallelised, and call the MPI library. I've also got a
"Baby X" GUI project which isn't going anywhere very fast.
Default User
> On the other hand, if the trolls would stop trolling, and if certain
> non-trolls would stop complaining about attempts to encourage
> topicality, I believe that the signal-to-noise would improve
> dramatically.
I would (again) encourage people to stop engaging the people in those
groups in debate. I have to encourage myself too.
Brian
Ben Pfaff
> There is a header file foo.h, which defines a macro like this:
>
> #define MAGIC_CHARACTER 'x'
>
> The main program #includes foo.h and does some stuff that depends on which
> character is selected to be magic. The intent is that the user can change the
> x in the header file and recompile to get a different result.
>
> I would like to create a log file whose name contains the magic character. If
> MAGIC_CHARACTER had been defined as a string ("x" instead of 'x') I could do
> this:
>
> logfp=fopen(MAGIC_CHARACTER ".log", "w");
char filename[] = {MAGIC_CHARACTER, '.', 'l', 'o', 'g', '\0'};
or
char filename[BIG_ENOUGH];
snprintf(filename, BIG_ENOUGH, "%c.log", MAGIC_CHARACTER);
or, in C99,
logfp = fopen((char[]) {MAGIC_CHARACTER, '.', 'l', 'o', 'g', '\0'}, "w");
None of these are ideal of course.
--
"Some programming practices beg for errors;
this one is like calling an 800 number
and having errors delivered to your door."
--Steve McConnell
Richard Harter
<ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>And how exactly do you know that? The past history of comp.lang.c++
>suggests that it most likely *would* decline into a chaotic mess,
What on Earth do you think comp.lang.c is now?
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net
http://home.tiac.net/~cri, http://www.varinoma.com
But the rhetoric of holistic harmony can generate into a kind of
dotty, Prince Charles-style mysticism. -- Richard Dawkins
Kenny McCormack
user923005 <dco...@connx.com> wrote:
...
>superior to Dan Pop's. I think that we tend to navigate to the Dan
>Pop "Slam the door in the newbie's face" school of graciousness simply
>because it tends to be easier.
And a lot more fun. (cough, cough) CBF.
Ian Collins
> "Chris Hills" <ch...@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>
>> I want to be able to discuss C as it is used. Which is Not pure ISO C.
>> If you want to discus just pure ISO C go to comp.std.c
>>
> I write virtually all of my work programs in pure ISO C. The exception
> is those which are parallelised, and call the MPI library. I've also got
> a "Baby X" GUI project which isn't going anywhere very fast.
>
programmers who know what pure ISO C is who use it...
Most C programmers these days will be doing embedded and DSP work, which
invariably makes heavy use of the extensions provided by the vendor for
the specific target. I'm not saying that most of the code for these
environments can't be written in standard C, with platform specifics
confined to separate modules (I do this and encourage others to do the
same), but that is simply isn't.
So I think that while encouraging standard C, a group such as this
should cater for all C programmers and not pounce on any non-standard
code like a pack of wolves. By all means point out a more correct way,
but don't let the corrections swamp the often simple answer to the
original question. All too often threads here degenerate into what is
and what isn't standard C long after the original question has been
answered.
How about we all try to answer the specific questions asked first, then
point out how to correct non-standard forms? I'm sure it wouldn't be
too hard to make c.l.c a more friendly place.
--
Ian Collins.
user923005
I guess that redirection to a dsp group is better than answering the
question here. In such a case a polite redirection serves the OP
better than giving the answer here.
On the other hand, it may be that this group is the best place to
answer it. In that case it should be answered here. If the answer is
a single sentence or something innocuous like that, then the best
answer may be to answer the question directly along with redirection
to a better newsgroup. However lengthy answers about DSP specific
stuff are of no interest to me {for instance}. I suspect that you
would not be terribly interested in how to navigate an OpenVMS
directory structure. Someone else might object to Windows API calls.
Yet another person might not want to know about shared memory on
Linux. In short, I think that long discussions about things that are
*better* answered elsewhere are a disservice to the newsgroup and to
the OP.
CBFalconer
> Chris Hills wrote:
>
>> CBF was saying that the compiler that compiles non standard code is
>> "faulty".
>
> The only place in this subthread where CBF used the word "faulty" was
> the following:
>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I find it quite possible to compile standard C code on a
>>>>>>> non-compliant compiler. However, code that compiles on that
>>>>>>> (faulty) compiler is not necessarily compilable elsewhere.
>
> faulty. I see nothing wrong with this point of view. The context
> suggested that he may have (mistakenly) considered a compiler with
> extensions to be nonconforming, but I'm sure that he agrees with the
> standard that compilers may implement extensions if they like.
Non-compliant does not exclude extensions. However syntax
extensions are automatically non-compliant, and require warnings.
Connection to other routines requires the source of such routines
to be portable, and those routines themselves need to be written
(or at least writable) in standard C. If the code is not portable,
it does not belong in c.l.c. The point is dual - the readership
cannot intelligently comment on undefined things, nor can they
comment on the usage of such beasts.
The parentheses around (faulty) were intended to imply a
possibility. Otherwise I would have simply omitted the
parentheses.
This seems to be a fairly silly discussion, since there is no
reason not to take the off-topic discussions to appropriate
newsgroups.
--
Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
CBFalconer
> CBFalconer <cbfal...@yahoo.com> writes
>> <Chris Hills wrote - added back>
>
... snip ...
>>
>>> There are no C compilers in the world. Non are fully C99 compliant
>>> and have no extensions.
>>
>> non-compliant compiler. However, code that compiles on that
>> seem to have great confusion between cause and effect.
>
> The compiler is NOT faulty. If you insist on that sort of stupidity
> there is not a non faulty C compiler on the planet.
>
> the extensions in order to do efficient programs on most targets.
It certainly is faulty if it is failing to warn about deviations
from the ISO standard. Granted, this is more a QOI factor than a
fault.
>
> I wonder how people can get compilers for use on 61508 SIL3, 60601-1-4
> and Do187B projects if these compilers are "faulty"
>
> You seem completely at odds with the safety critical world and I know
> which one I would bet my life on... let alone my money.
>
> This is my problem with the small group of net nannies on here. They are
> out of touch with reality.
You keep failing to realize the topicality. There is adequate room
for discussion of those specialized compilers on
comp.arch.embedded. This is NOT comp.arch.embedded. This is
comp.lang.c, where topicality is defined by the various historical
C standards.
Mark McIntyre
<p...@see.sig.invalid> wrote:
>Richard wrote:
>>some (not all) of the noisiest net nannies seem to have
>> little experience of real code and real situations
I can't overlook this ludicrous remark. As I've bothered to read up on
who some of the people Richard complains about are, I can say with
some comfort that most of them have more real world experience in
their little fingers than the rest of us can dream of.
>> I shed a tear when I see "How should WE know. We only only deal in ISO
>> C" when someone posts something like
>>
>> #include <mstruct.h>
(snip code)
>
>I agree here too.
However given that this is a false situation, the question was
disingenuous at best.
The most likely answer in this case would be "how can we tell without
knowing what mstruct.h contains?"
--
Mark McIntyre
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan
Ian Collins
a detailed answer to a completely platform specific question which would
be better answered elsewhere. I was referring to the common form of
question where there is an obvious C language problem, but the posted
code contains something non standard, say <conio.h> or <curses.h>. More
often than not, these are dismissed as off-topic by virtue of the
platform specific code when there is a simple platform neutral answer.
Sure if the question relates directly to the behavior of platform
specific libraries or tools politely send the poster to a more
appropriate group.
--
Ian Collins.
Al Balmer
wrote:
> If the answer is
>a single sentence or something innocuous like that, then the best
>answer may be to answer the question directly along with redirection
>to a better newsgroup.
1. The single sentence answer may be wrong, and not caught by others
in the group because they aren't the people who know the subject. When
that wrong answer is given with apparent authority, chances are the
questioner will not follow up with the suggested group.
2. People participate in groups to learn more about the subject of the
group. By answering the off-topic question here, you are depriving the
people in the group where the question would be topical.
3. You are encouraging the questioner to come back with still more
off-topic questions.
In general, answering off-topic questions is doing a disservice to the
questioner. Send him to the right place. If you have the expertise and
want to answer the question, don't be shy. Redirect the questioner,
then answer the question where others may be interested in the answer,
may provide a different slant, or, heaven forbid, even correct the
advice you give.
Old Wolf
> Any topicality stance is bound to have advantages *and* disadvantages. So
> please think carefully before weighing in too heavily in favour of a
> particular stance!
This group is already high-volume, by any reasonable
definition of the term. There are more than 100 posts
a day, I think.
Any loosening of the current topicality 'rules'
(i.e. other than your groups P,N,C) will only
make it harder to find and read the good posts.
Default User
> In general, answering off-topic questions is doing a disservice to the
> questioner. Send him to the right place. If you have the expertise and
> want to answer the question, don't be shy. Redirect the questioner,
> then answer the question where others may be interested in the answer,
> may provide a different slant, or, heaven forbid, even correct the
> advice you give.
I agree with this. One way is to provide your answer, with the
"correct" newsgroup added to distribution and follow-ups set there.
Brian
Al Balmer
wrote:
> I was referring to the common form of
>question where there is an obvious C language problem, but the posted
>code contains something non standard, say <conio.h> or <curses.h>. More
> often than not, these are dismissed as off-topic by virtue of the
>platform specific code when there is a simple platform neutral answer.
Perhaps I read a different mix than you, but it seems just the
opposite to me. Many responders go out of their way to dig out the
question about C that's buried deep in the seemingly off-topic morass.
There may be some who dismiss the question because they didn't read
carefully, but that's why we allow more than one answer :-)
More than once, I've skimmed, then skipped, a long message about
problems using some specialized library on Windows, then gone back
after I read a reply by someone who discerned the real question <g>.
Al Balmer
wrote:
>I wonder how people can get compilers for use on 61508 SIL3, 60601-1-4
>and Do187B projects if these compilers are "faulty"
>
>You seem completely at odds with the safety critical world and I know
>which one I would bet my life on... let alone my money.
If I had a safety critical issue that depended on particular knowledge
of the above projects, I certainly wouldn't depend on answers I got in
c.l.c., and I certainly hope that you wouldn't, either. In case you
do, please name the products involved, so I can avoid them ;-)
CBFalconer
This is a much more reasonable attitude. The problem is to avoid
letting it get out of hand. At the same time such answers
(basically reworking to standard C) are often totally unclear,
because the description is in terms of some off-beat
implementation, whose characteristics can at most be guessed at.
We aren't going to get clear problem descriptions from newbies.
We will probably get closest by pushing top-down programming. I.e.
write the program, dependent on several described routines. Write
those routines dependent on further routines. At some point
separate the herd of subservient routines into standards conforming
and non-standards conforming. With care, the non-standard stuff
should be small, and left up to the querier. The newbie will learn
all sorts of things from the process.
An awkward portion will be getting across what is, and is not,
standard. Things like "go read N1124" won't cut it, but "get it
and periodically search it" may help.
CBFalconer
>
... snip ...
>
> On the other hand, if the trolls would stop trolling, and if certain
> non-trolls would stop complaining about attempts to encourage
> topicality, I believe that the signal-to-noise would improve
> dramatically.
Well, the PLONK file is a very rough approximation to that. :-)
CBFalconer
>
... snip ...
>
> There is a header file foo.h, which defines a macro like this:
>
> #define MAGIC_CHARACTER 'x'
>
> The main program #includes foo.h and does some stuff that depends
> on which character is selected to be magic. The intent is that the
> user can change the x in the header file and recompile to get a
> different result.
>
> I would like to create a log file whose name contains the magic
> character. If MAGIC_CHARACTER had been defined as a string ("x"
> instead of 'x') I could do this:
>
> logfp=fopen(MAGIC_CHARACTER ".log", "w");
How about:
#define MAGIC_CHAR 'x'
#define MAGIC_STRG # (MAGIC_CHAR, '\0')
use as desired.
Kenny McCormack
Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote a bunch of his usual clueless
blather, leading up to:
...
>Discussions of how horribly bad Windows is (either inherently or in
>comparison to Unix), and about Microsoft being the Great Satan, or at
>least the source of all buffer overflows, is certainly off-topic.
>This is not the place for OS flame wars.
>
>But referring to Windows as "your particular platform" is perfectly
>appropriate, since that's exactly what it is. Unless there's more
>context than that, I see nothing supercilious about it.
This just goes to show how totally clueless (or possibly, outright evil)
you really are. It is perfectly clear to most of us that referring to
Windows as "your particular platform" is intended as a slam. That it
is possible to interpret this meaning away (as you have done) is, of
course, part of what makes for a good slam. Something about "Aesopean
language"...