Has ANSI Approved ISO/IEC 9899:1999?
jaysome
Does anyone know if ANSI has approved it?
A Google search shows arguably confusing answers as to whether ANSI
has approved it. For example, on this site:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_(programming_language)#ANSI_C_and_ISO_C
it says that "It was adopted as an ANSI standard in March 2000."
But on this site (which appears in the signature of someone who posts
to this newsgroup somewhat regularly and someone who everyone should
deeply respect):
http://jk-technology.com/c/standards.html
it says that "This update to the C language standard has not been
approved by ANSI and is not an American National Standard at this
time". This site goes on to further say that "I will post more
information as it becomes available to me".
A search for terms that you would think would find a match for C99 on
ANSI's site shows no relevant results.
Has ISO/IEC 9899:1999 been approved by ANSI?
Best regards
--
jay
Ian Collins
> It's been almost eight years since ISO/IEC approved ISO/IEC 9899:1999.
>
> Does anyone know if ANSI has approved it?
>
--
Ian Collins.
Richard Heathfield
> It's been almost eight years since ISO/IEC approved ISO/IEC 9899:1999.
>
> Does anyone know if ANSI has approved it?
Yes, it was approved by ANSI on 22nd May 2000.
>
> A Google search shows arguably confusing answers as to whether ANSI
> has approved it. For example, on this site:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_(programming_language)#ANSI_C_and_ISO_C
>
> it says that "It was adopted as an ANSI standard in March 2000."
Typical Wikipedia. Lesson 1: Never Trust Wikipedia To Get Stuff Right. It
does sometimes get stuff right, at least for a while, but it is not a
reliable information source. At best, it's a primer.
> But on this site (which appears in the signature of someone who posts
> to this newsgroup somewhat regularly and someone who everyone should
> deeply respect):
>
> http://jk-technology.com/c/standards.html
>
> it says that "This update to the C language standard has not been
> approved by ANSI and is not an American National Standard at this
> time". This site goes on to further say that "I will post more
> information as it becomes available to me".
Well, I suppose, if Jack reads this thread, more information will become
available to him.
--
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
jaysome
wrote:
I did read that page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Font
Did I miss something?
--
jay
Ian Collins
box.
--
Ian Collins.
Francois Grieu
jaysome <jay...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It's been almost eight years since ISO/IEC approved ISO/IEC 9899:1999.
>
> Does anyone know if ANSI has approved it?
Yes. See
http://webstore.ansi.org/FindStandards.aspx?SearchString=9899
The ANSI version is identical to the ISO/IEC version,
except for a box on the front page, readign (in part)
Processed and adopted by ASC the National Committee for
Information Technology Standards (NCITS) and approved by
ANSI as an American National Standard.
Date of ANSI Approval: 5/22/2000
Published by American National Standards Institute,
11 West 42nd Street, New York, New York 10036
Francois Grieu
Joachim Schmitz
news:vbOdnXp0eZAnAYDa...@bt.com...
> jaysome said:
>
>> It's been almost eight years since ISO/IEC approved ISO/IEC 9899:1999.
>>
>> Does anyone know if ANSI has approved it?
>
> Yes, it was approved by ANSI on 22nd May 2000.
>
>>
>> A Google search shows arguably confusing answers as to whether ANSI
>> has approved it. For example, on this site:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_(programming_language)#ANSI_C_and_ISO_C
>>
>> it says that "It was adopted as an ANSI standard in March 2000."
>
> Typical Wikipedia. Lesson 1: Never Trust Wikipedia To Get Stuff Right. It
> does sometimes get stuff right, at least for a while, but it is not a
> reliable information source. At best, it's a primer.
darn thing.
BTW: I just did...
Bye, Jojo
Richard Bos
> "Richard Heathfield" <r...@see.sig.invalid> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> > jaysome said:
> >
> >> A Google search shows arguably confusing answers as to whether ANSI
> >> has approved it. For example, on this site:
> >>
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_(programming_language)#ANSI_C_and_ISO_C
> >>
> >> it says that "It was adopted as an ANSI standard in March 2000."
> >
> > Typical Wikipedia. Lesson 1: Never Trust Wikipedia To Get Stuff Right. It
> > does sometimes get stuff right, at least for a while, but it is not a
> > reliable information source. At best, it's a primer.
> The point about wikipedia is: if you know better, just go ahead and fix the
> darn thing.
...and then wait for your well-informed change to be reverted by an
ignoramus with more Wikipoints. No, thanks.
Richard
Richard Heathfield
> "Richard Heathfield" <r...@see.sig.invalid> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> news:vbOdnXp0eZAnAYDa...@bt.com...
>> jaysome said:
>>
<snip>
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_(programming_language)#ANSI_C_and_ISO_C
>>>
>>> it says that "It was adopted as an ANSI standard in March 2000."
>>
>> Typical Wikipedia. Lesson 1: Never Trust Wikipedia To Get Stuff Right.
>> It does sometimes get stuff right, at least for a while, but it is not a
>> reliable information source. At best, it's a primer.
> The point about wikipedia is: if you know better, just go ahead and fix
> the darn thing.
> BTW: I just did...
Been there, done that, had my changes backed out. Waste of time. Wiki is
ruled by the (relatively) clueless.
Joachim Schmitz
> Joachim Schmitz said:
>
>> "Richard Heathfield" <r...@see.sig.invalid> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>> news:vbOdnXp0eZAnAYDa...@bt.com...
>>> jaysome said:
>>>
> <snip>
>>>>
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_(programming_language)#ANSI_C_and_ISO_C
>>>>
>>>> it says that "It was adopted as an ANSI standard in March 2000."
>>>
>>> Typical Wikipedia. Lesson 1: Never Trust Wikipedia To Get Stuff Right.
>>> It does sometimes get stuff right, at least for a while, but it is not a
>>> reliable information source. At best, it's a primer.
>> The point about wikipedia is: if you know better, just go ahead and fix
>> the darn thing.
>> BTW: I just did...
>
> Been there, done that, had my changes backed out. Waste of time. Wiki is
> ruled by the (relatively) clueless.
Bye, Jojo
Kenneth Brody
>
> jaysome wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 19:13:19 +1300, Ian Collins <ian-...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> jaysome wrote:
> >>> It's been almost eight years since ISO/IEC approved ISO/IEC 9899:1999.
> >>>
> >>> Does anyone know if ANSI has approved it?
> >>>
> >> Read the font page.
> >
> > I did read that page:
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Font
> >
> > Did I miss something?
> >
> The front page of the standard. The ANSI approval date is in a nice big
> box.
You missed your typo.
--
+-------------------------+--------------------+-----------------------+
| 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>
Christopher Benson-Manica
> Read the font page.
That sounds like an excellent resource for resolving the question
"Should I use Lucida Console or Courier New?", but I'm not sure it would
be too helpful with respect to the approval of C99 by ANSI :-)
Perhaps it discusses what font the Standard document uses...
--
C. Benson Manica | I appreciate all corrections, polite or otherwise.
cbmanica(at)gmail.com |
----------------------| I do not currently read any posts posted through
sdf.lonestar.org | Google groups, due to rampant unchecked spam.
Jack Klein
wrote in comp.lang.c:
> It's been almost eight years since ISO/IEC approved ISO/IEC 9899:1999.
>
> Does anyone know if ANSI has approved it?
>
> A Google search shows arguably confusing answers as to whether ANSI
> has approved it. For example, on this site:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_(programming_language)#ANSI_C_and_ISO_C
>
> it says that "It was adopted as an ANSI standard in March 2000."
Google got it almost right. It was approved as an ANSI standard on
May 22, 2000. It says so right in the genuine ANSI PDF, formerly
available for $18.00 via ANSI's web site. Although I think I have
heard that the price has gone up to about $30.00.
The US delegation voted unanimously in favor of adoption at the ISO
committee vote. Ordinarily that would have automatically approved it
as an ANSI standard at the same time.
However, somebody (I don't know who) had filed a formal objection with
ANSI over the C99 standard. Due to ANSI's procedural rules, that
meant that ISO delegation alone could not approve it as an ANSI
standard, instead it had to be sent out to a larger number of ANSI
members, with time for review, comments, and finally a vote.
This took almost six months, but C99 received sufficient votes and
officially became an ANSI standard on May 22, 2000.
> But on this site (which appears in the signature of someone who posts
> to this newsgroup somewhat regularly and someone who everyone should
> deeply respect):
>
> http://jk-technology.com/c/standards.html
>
> it says that "This update to the C language standard has not been
> approved by ANSI and is not an American National Standard at this
> time". This site goes on to further say that "I will post more
> information as it becomes available to me".
OK, I'm a little behind on updating that page on my web site. It's
only 7 1/2 years out-of-date, give me a break.
> A search for terms that you would think would find a match for C99 on
> ANSI's site shows no relevant results.
>
> Has ISO/IEC 9899:1999 been approved by ANSI?
>
> Best regards
I'll probably get around to fixing that some day...
--
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
Richard Heathfield
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 21:48:19 -0700, jaysome <jay...@hotmail.com>
> wrote in comp.lang.c:
>
>> A Google search shows arguably confusing answers as to whether ANSI
>> has approved [C99]. For example, on this site:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_(programming_language)#ANSI_C_and_ISO_C
>>
>> it says that "It was adopted as an ANSI standard in March 2000."
>
> Google got it almost right.
No, it didn't. Wikipedia did. Google is just a search engine. :-)
<snip>
CBFalconer
> jaysome <jay...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
... snip ...
>
>> But on this site (which appears in the signature of someone who
>> posts to this newsgroup somewhat regularly and someone who
>> everyone should deeply respect):
>>
>> http://jk-technology.com/c/standards.html
>>
>> it says that "This update to the C language standard has not been
>> approved by ANSI and is not an American National Standard at this
>> time". This site goes on to further say that "I will post more
>> information as it becomes available to me".
>
> OK, I'm a little behind on updating that page on my web site. It's
> only 7 1/2 years out-of-date, give me a break.
In other words :-) your were lying through your teeth when you
wrote the last quoted sentence above. :-) You are almost as lazy
as I am.
--
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
lawrenc...@ugs.com
>
> Perhaps it discusses what font the Standard document uses...
Zapf dingbats. Or perhaps it's the editor that's some kind of dingbat;
I may have gotten them confused.
-Larry Jones
You should see me when I lose in real life! -- Calvin
Joachim Schmitz
news:ffkn0p$919$1...@online.de...
correcting stuff in Wikipedia is _not_ a wast of time.
Bye, Jojo
Bye, Jojo
Richard Heathfield
<snip>
> My change is still in, 2 days and 3 edits later. Sort of proves my view
> that correcting stuff in Wikipedia is _not_ a wast of time.
It does? I'd have just thought that it proved Jason is on holiday (or
whoever it is that keeps backing out the corrections). Or sick, or
something.
Anyway, if you have the magic touch and can make sticky changes to the
Wiki, great - off you go, to fix all the other problems with it. See you
in a few dozen years...
Mark McIntyre
<nospa...@schmitz-digital.de> wrote:
>The point about wikipedia is: if you know better, just go ahead and fix the
>darn thing.
No use - whenever you change anything, some moron who thinks he knows
better will revert it. or worse yet, replace it with garbage and place
the page in contention mode (or whatever wikinarians call it) so you
can't fix it again.
Note that just because this doesn't happen this time, doesn't mean it
won't happen next time. its a manifestation of UB...
--
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
Joachim Schmitz
news:vu22i3h6ablss1qva...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:25:21 +0200, in comp.lang.c , "Joachim Schmitz"
> <nospa...@schmitz-digital.de> wrote:
>
>>The point about wikipedia is: if you know better, just go ahead and fix
>>the
>>darn thing.
>
> No use - whenever you change anything, some moron who thinks he knows
> better will revert it. or worse yet, replace it with garbage and place
> the page in contention mode (or whatever wikinarians call it) so you
> can't fix it again.
> Note that just because this doesn't happen this time, doesn't mean it
> won't happen next time. its a manifestation of UB...
hold on: it happened to me once, but in that case I was on error, and got
corrected.
That particular change of mine is still in, 8 edits later.
To me wikipedia is the greates thing since sliced bread...
Bye, Jojo
Marjancek
> No use - whenever you change anything, some moron who thinks he knows
> better will revert it. or worse yet, replace it with garbage and place
> the page in contention mode (or whatever wikinarians call it) so you
> can't fix it again.
People at wikipedia demand for Quotations even to fix something that
is clearly wrong, and ignore egos, titles and curricula all together.
But all in all it's not that hard to fix something if you prove your
point, and keep your manners (something not everyone in lcl has)
Marjancek
Mark McIntyre
<nospa...@schmitz-digital.de> wrote:
>To me wikipedia is the greates thing since sliced bread...
Please see a doctor.
Smiley deliberately omitted...
Keith Thompson
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:44:03 +0200, in comp.lang.c , "Joachim Schmitz"
> <nospa...@schmitz-digital.de> wrote:
>>To me wikipedia is the greates thing since sliced bread...
>
> Please see a doctor.
>
> Smiley deliberately omitted...
If you had been *either* off-topic *or* gratuitously insulting, I
wouldn't bother to post. As it is, please post to alt.flame.wikipedia
(the fact that it doesn't exist is your own problem).
--
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"
Mark McIntyre
<ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>Mark McIntyre <markmc...@spamcop.net> writes:
>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:44:03 +0200, in comp.lang.c , "Joachim Schmitz"
>> <nospa...@schmitz-digital.de> wrote:
>>>To me wikipedia is the greates thing since sliced bread...
>>
>> Please see a doctor.
>>
>> Smiley deliberately omitted...
>
>If you had been *either* off-topic *or* gratuitously insulting, I
>wouldn't bother to post. As it is, please post to alt.flame.wikipedia
>(the fact that it doesn't exist is your own problem).
My apologies if this offended you, but I was being neither insulting
nor mocking - IMHO anyone who takes Wikipedia seriously has a problem.
Offtopic I cop to.
Richard
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:43:25 -0700, in comp.lang.c , Keith Thompson
> <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>
>>Mark McIntyre <markmc...@spamcop.net> writes:
>>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:44:03 +0200, in comp.lang.c , "Joachim Schmitz"
>>> <nospa...@schmitz-digital.de> wrote:
>>>>To me wikipedia is the greates thing since sliced bread...
>>>
>>> Please see a doctor.
>>>
>>> Smiley deliberately omitted...
>>
>>If you had been *either* off-topic *or* gratuitously insulting, I
>>wouldn't bother to post. As it is, please post to alt.flame.wikipedia
>>(the fact that it doesn't exist is your own problem).
>
> My apologies if this offended you, but I was being neither insulting
> nor mocking - IMHO anyone who takes Wikipedia seriously has a problem.
Don't be so bloody ridiculous. Wikipedia is a great resource for the
greater majority of its contents. It was found to be as accurate as
Brittania in the majority of subjects compared.
Yes, there can be problems but its a wonderful resource.
The bottom line is "trust nothing" if the results are really, really,
important. Always double and triple check.
>
> Offtopic I cop to.
Kenny McCormack
Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>Mark McIntyre <markmc...@spamcop.net> writes:
>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 18:44:03 +0200, in comp.lang.c , "Joachim Schmitz"
>> <nospa...@schmitz-digital.de> wrote:
>>>To me wikipedia is the greates thing since sliced bread...
>>
>> Please see a doctor.
>>
>> Smiley deliberately omitted...
>
>If you had been *either* off-topic *or* gratuitously insulting, I
>wouldn't bother to post. As it is, please post to alt.flame.wikipedia
>(the fact that it doesn't exist is your own problem).
It is so refreshing to see honest dissension amongst the regulars.
When I started posting to clc (in the current incarnation), there was
absolutely no (public) disagreement among the regulars; they presented a
unified front. Very nice to see that things have loosened up.
Richard
There was never any united front. But the fact is that there is now
tension as to who can be first to state that a pointer is not really the
same as an array yet again, or that "adding integers together can cause
overflow" or that "gets must not be used" or that "we do not talk about
that". It's like death by a 1000 echos half the time in here.
Kenny McCormack
Richard <rgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
...
>> When I started posting to clc (in the current incarnation), there was
>> absolutely no (public) disagreement among the regulars; they presented a
>> unified front. Very nice to see that things have loosened up.
>
>There was never any united front.
I'm going to say that you've not been here long enough to know.
And I'm not talking about ancient history (like decades or whatever);
just like the last 3 years or so. As far as I know, you've only been
posting here for about a year.
>But the fact is that there is now tension as to who can be first to
>state that a pointer is not really the same as an array yet again, or
>that "adding integers together can cause overflow" or that "gets must
>not be used" or that "we do not talk about that". It's like death by a
>1000 echos half the time in here.
So very true.
Richard
> In article <m7lev4-...@news.individual.net>,
> Richard <rgr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
>>> When I started posting to clc (in the current incarnation), there was
>>> absolutely no (public) disagreement among the regulars; they presented a
>>> unified front. Very nice to see that things have loosened up.
>>
>>There was never any united front.
>
> I'm going to say that you've not been here long enough to know.
I was. But rarely posted. Only when things got ridiculous did I decide
enough was enough. I believe it was CBFalconer who pushed me over the
limit a while back when he told someone off for something he was as
guilty of. He really seemed to think, in conjunction with some others,
that he was part of some elite Usenet mega group of C Gods.
What I meant was that there was never a united front - more an apparent
united front as the current incumbents tried to establish their
position in the pecking order. Some even invented special affectations
to put themselves one over the other. Think of proceeding names with
"Mr" and saying "Indeed" a lot. You know the type of thing.
The endless word games and petty bickering make this group almost unique
in all the years I have used such resources. Only in this group would
someone play such a word game as to suggest that there are "no such
things as global variables" in C.
> And I'm not talking about ancient history (like decades or whatever);
> just like the last 3 years or so. As far as I know, you've only been
> posting here for about a year.
It was the past 3 years that things got out of control. A bit of
rudeness is not so bad, but totally way out net nannying and preening
seemed to become the order of the day. I counted 9 "This is OT" replies
to one fairly reasonable question. And the replies were added more than
24 hours after the first. I don't buy this "I never saw the other
replies" excuse. Sometimes, maybe. But there are some here who just like
to see their name in print. "Mr" McIntyre seems to enjoy, for example,
being the newsgroups hypocrite by replying to all trolls by telling
others not to reply to them. But a special place is in my heart for
CBFalconer. The only man in the history of C programming who would
openly admit to ignoring maintainability issues in coding since he,
personally, never needs to use a debugger. Can you spell "teamwork"?
What on earth is a man who openly advocates not using a debugger doing
attempting to teach anything about coding? His rather amusing use of two
signatures while lecturing people on snipping them in replies is also
something which has a special place in my heart. It is rare indeed to
find such characters in the wild - I thought they had been extinct for
years.
>>But the fact is that there is now tension as to who can be first to
>>state that a pointer is not really the same as an array yet again, or
>>that "adding integers together can cause overflow" or that "gets must
>>not be used" or that "we do not talk about that". It's like death by a
>>1000 echos half the time in here.
>
> So very true.
"Indeed"
jacob navia
>
> The endless word games and petty bickering make this group almost unique
> in all the years I have used such resources. Only in this group would
> someone play such a word game as to suggest that there are "no such
> things as global variables" in C.
>
Heathfield said that strncpy wasn't a function to copy strings.
When presented with the evidence from the standard he waved
at it, and went on arguing nonsense.
I got tired of this group.
Mark McIntyre started writing anonymous posts at a very
"low" level, proposing solutions to the "jacob's problem".
A certain "old wolf" accused my daughter of being addicted to
pornography. Evidence? I mentioned that my daughter uses a broad
band connection to watch japanese comics "mangas".
I dared to answer him, starting my message with
"anonymous coward".
That was too much for McIntyre. I was "insulting old wolf" what an
heresy. He wrote immediately an anonymous posts accusing
my daughter of being a thief because she watches films without
paying...
And a long "etcetera" of insults, lies, etc.
Why?
I have developed a compiler system that tries to solve some of the
problems with the C language. It is being distributed for free
since 10 years.
But I am not GNU, and I use windows, and my code is not GPL, and many
other "very relevant" issues. There was never a technical discussion
because those people aren't able to discuss anything technical.
Their reaction to the efforts of creating a library of abstract
data types is typical of their frame of mind. Nothing really substantive
but just "it will not work", each one should develop his own library
forever.
But as I said, I got tired of the endless polemic. Sadly, there is no
forum where people can discuss about the language, its shortcomings,
how to improve it, etc.
--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
santosh
<snip>
> But as I said, I got tired of the endless polemic. Sadly, there is no
> forum where people can discuss about the language, its shortcomings,
> how to improve it, etc.
There are quite a number of web based forums. Granted they probably
don't have anywhere near the expertise of this group and the topic in
such places tend to be very "liberal", (parallel discussions, for
example, of C, C++, C# etc.), but they _are_ an alternative for those
who don't like the atmosphere of this group, or comp.std.c.
PS. Once again, don't let the trolls get you down. Despite
whatever "faults" you and your compiler may have, you are still
interesting to have around.
Richard
Richard
> Richard wrote:
>>
>> The endless word games and petty bickering make this group almost unique
>> in all the years I have used such resources. Only in this group would
>> someone play such a word game as to suggest that there are "no such
>> things as global variables" in C.
>>
>
> Heathfield said that strncpy wasn't a function to copy strings.
> When presented with the evidence from the standard he waved
> at it, and went on arguing nonsense.
>
> I got tired of this group.
>
> Mark McIntyre started writing anonymous posts at a very
> "low" level, proposing solutions to the "jacob's problem".
It is not wise to say such things without proof. Do you have proof?
jacob navia
Obvious. He is the only one that posted an approval. He was the
only one that approved the insults campaign to my daughter.
Keith Thompson
> Richard wrote:
>> The endless word games and petty bickering make this group almost
>> unique
>> in all the years I have used such resources. Only in this group would
>> someone play such a word game as to suggest that there are "no such
>> things as global variables" in C.
>
> Heathfield said that strncpy wasn't a function to copy strings.
> When presented with the evidence from the standard he waved
> at it, and went on arguing nonsense.
strncpy(), unlike any other string function, does not necessarily
zero-terminate the target array. It's designed to operate on a highly
specialized data format, *not* on C strings. (Yes, this specialized
format *sometimes* happens to be a C string.)
> I got tired of this group.
>
> Mark McIntyre started writing anonymous posts at a very
> "low" level, proposing solutions to the "jacob's problem".
You're referring to <rose...@mailinator.com>, yes? I don't believe
you. People have sometimes made unfounded accusations against you;
don't do the same.
> A certain "old wolf" accused my daughter of being addicted to
> pornography. Evidence? I mentioned that my daughter uses a broad
> band connection to watch japanese comics "mangas".
Yes, and he was criticized for that. One person said something
stupid; that doesn't reflect anything about the newsgroup.
And Old Wolf later apologized to you; see Message-ID
<1190339041.6...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>.
Incidentally, "Old Wolf" is pseudonymous, not anonymous. He
consistently posts using that name, just as I consistently post using
the name "Keith Thompson" and you consistently post using the name
"jacob navia". (I suppose the same could be said for
<rose...@mailinator.com>, but that identity seems to exist for the
sole purpose of insulting you.)
> I dared to answer him, starting my message with
> "anonymous coward".
>
> That was too much for McIntyre. I was "insulting old wolf" what an
> heresy.
He took issue with your use of the phrase "anonymous coward". I don't
recall him defending Old Wolf's original statement, just criticizing
your reaction to it. Possibly he misunderstood the common use of the
phrase. In my opinion Mark overreacted, but it's hardly worth
worrying about this long after the event.
> He wrote immediately an anonymous posts accusing
> my daughter of being a thief because she watches films without
> paying...
Prove it!
[snip]
> But I am not GNU, and I use windows, and my code is not GPL, and many
> other "very relevant" issues. There was never a technical discussion
> because those people aren't able to discuss anything technical.
There's been plenty of technical discussion. I recall a fairly
lengthy one in comp.std.c not long ago.
> Their reaction to the efforts of creating a library of abstract
> data types is typical of their frame of mind. Nothing really substantive
> but just "it will not work", each one should develop his own library
> forever.
Yes, people expressed their opinions.
> But as I said, I got tired of the endless polemic. Sadly, there is no
> forum where people can discuss about the language, its shortcomings,
> how to improve it, etc.
We discuss the language here in comp.lang.c. Suggestions for how to
improve it are discussed in comp.std.c.
Peter Pichler
> Sadly, there is no
> forum where people can discuss about the language, its shortcomings,
> how to improve it, etc.
comp.std.c?
Admittedly, I have not followed it for *years*, so I may be way off.
CBFalconer
>
... snip ...
>
> But as I said, I got tired of the endless polemic. Sadly, there
> is no forum where people can discuss about the language, its
> shortcomings, how to improve it, etc.
Of course there is. However use of it, without arousing
irritation, involves some slight discipline, including attempting
to remain on topic. It is also advisable to avoid misconstruing
all comments.
The group is called "comp.lang.c".
Mark McIntyre
<ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>jacob navia <ja...@nospam.org> writes:
>
>> Mark McIntyre started writing anonymous posts at a very
>> "low" level, proposing solutions to the "jacob's problem".
>
>You're referring to <rose...@mailinator.com>, yes? I don't believe
>you.
For the record, JN's claim is absolutely and totally false.
>> I dared to answer him, starting my message with
>> "anonymous coward".
>> That was too much for McIntyre. I was "insulting old wolf" what an
>> heresy.
>
>He took issue with your use of the phrase "anonymous coward". ...
>Possibly he misunderstood the common use of the
>phrase.
I don't read slashdot, and intensely dislike the Register copying that
method of identifying those readers who prefer to remain anonymous.
Deciding to post anonymously is not cowardice (consider if you were
posting information critical of your military govermnent, or
whistleblowing on your employer's illegal practices). On the other
hand where I come from an accusation of cowardice is on a par with one
of prefererence for kiddies. YMMV of course.
Francin...@googlemail.com
> Mark McIntyre started writing anonymous posts at a very
> "low" level, proposing solutions to the "jacob's problem".
>
> A certain "old wolf" accused my daughter of being addicted to
> pornography. Evidence? I mentioned that my daughter uses a broad
> band connection to watch japanese comics "mangas".
>
> I dared to answer him, starting my message with
> "anonymous coward".
>
> That was too much for McIntyre. I was "insulting old wolf" what an
> heresy. He wrote immediately an anonymous posts accusing
> my daughter of being a thief because she watches films without
> paying...
>
> And a long "etcetera" of insults, lies, etc.
The first thing to say is that some of the anonymous posts directed
against you have exhibited the worst kind of school-ground bullying,
and whoever wrote them should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
But don't be upset by the bully! If you re-read the "Jacob problem"
thread, you'll find that almost unanimously the people here defended
you against the anonymous attacker - even (especially) the people who
often disagree with you. Isn't that a positive thing?
Finally, you should apologize for the comments quoted above in which
you make accusations against Mark McIntyre with no evidence. He seems
to me like a blunt sort of guy who's unlikely to feel the need to hide
behind anonymous sock-puppets to say what he wants to say. The way to
respond to "insults, lies, etc" is not with more insults, lies, etc.
> But as I said, I got tired of the endless polemic. Sadly, there is no
> forum where people can discuss about the language, its shortcomings,
> how to improve it, etc.
Well, it cuts both ways... if you could keep calm when you post,
discussions here could be more fruitful.
Kenny McCormack
Mark McIntyre <markmc...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 28 Oct 2007 14:12:12 -0700, in comp.lang.c , Keith Thompson
><ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>
>>jacob navia <ja...@nospam.org> writes:
>>
>>> Mark McIntyre started writing anonymous posts at a very
>>> "low" level, proposing solutions to the "jacob's problem".
>>
>>You're referring to <rose...@mailinator.com>, yes? I don't believe
>>you.
>
>For the record, JN's claim is absolutely and totally false.
"I am not a crook."
Richard Heathfield
jacob navia said:
> Richard wrote:
>>
>> The endless word games and petty bickering make this group almost unique
>> in all the years I have used such resources. Only in this group would
>> someone play such a word game as to suggest that there are "no such
>> things as global variables" in C.
>>
>
> Heathfield said that strncpy wasn't a function to copy strings.
Right. It isn't.
> When presented with the evidence from the standard he waved
> at it, and went on arguing nonsense.
The evidence from the Standard is that, at most, it notices and reacts to a
null terminator in its input. But it certainly doesn't require one. If you
want to accuse me of arguing nonsense, you have to show that it's nonsense
to the satisfaction of others, not merely your own.
<snip>
> I have developed a compiler system that tries to solve some of the
> problems with the C language.
Some of the problems *you* perceive with the language, which is fine, but
not everyone shares your perception of what constitutes problems with C.
> It is being distributed for free since 10 years.
>
> But I am not GNU, and I use windows, and my code is not GPL, and many
> other "very relevant" issues.
The fact that you're not GNU is irrelevant. The fact that you use Windows
is irrelevant. The fact that you don't GPL your code is irrelevant. When
you are criticised here, it is either for getting your C wrong or for
using this technical forum to advertise and promote your compiler.
> There was never a technical discussion
> because those people aren't able to discuss anything technical.
On many occasions, these very people have pointed out problems with your
code or your advice but you've been unable to understand those problems.
It is you, not they, who struggle with technical discussions.
> Their reaction to the efforts of creating a library of abstract
> data types is typical of their frame of mind. Nothing really substantive
> but just "it will not work", each one should develop his own library
> forever.
They're just being realistic. Are you prepared to use the library proposed
by Chris Tomasson? Even if you are, I'm not, because it doesn't meet my
needs. Standardisation is *really hard*, which is why ISO move so slowly.
And the reason it's really hard is that there are all these people saying
"yes, it would be great to standardise <foo>", but hardly any of them
agree on how best to do that.
> But as I said, I got tired of the endless polemic. Sadly, there is no
> forum where people can discuss about the language, its shortcomings,
> how to improve it, etc.
comp.std.c - and don't imagine for a moment that what your proposals for
"improvement" will meet with universal acclaim, any more than anyone
else's will.
Larry__Weiss
> comp.std.c - and don't imagine for a moment that what your proposals for
> "improvement" will meet with universal acclaim, any more than anyone
> else's will.
>
I looked over at both
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/projects#19769
and can see that there is fairly recent committee activity.
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/standards
does not list the TC3 that
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/
references.
Google found TC3 as
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg14/www/docs/n1235.pdf
Is TC3 an approved standard?
- Larry
Philip Potter
"When two people are gathered in my name, then they must be sockpuppets."
Philip Potter
Thirded. I think it would be a terrible shame if you were to leave this
group.
Joe Wright
--
Joe Wright
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
--- Albert Einstein ---
Keith Thompson
> Kenny McCormack wrote:
[snip]
> Plagiarist?
One more time: *Please* don't feed the troll.
Kenny McCormack
Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.org> wrote:
>Joe Wright <joeww...@comcast.net> writes:
>> Kenny McCormack wrote:
>[snip]
>> Plagiarist?
>
>One more time: *Please* don't feed the troll.
It must come as a shock to you that you are _not_ the King of CLC.
Larry__Weiss
Maybe this would be answered quicker over in comp.std.c ?
- Larry
Richard
> Joe Wright <joeww...@comcast.net> writes:
>> Kenny McCormack wrote:
> [snip]
>> Plagiarist?
>
> One more time: *Please* don't feed the troll.
Telling people who and when to reply to is not considered a good idea
in usenet. It suggests some kind of "in charge" mentality which rarely,
if ever, reflects well on the perpetrator.
Kenny McCormack
Well said, sir!
It would certainly make an interesting case study to look at how and why
CLC became the way it is. I've not seen anything like it anywhere else.
Larry__Weiss
Have we been featured in a "Ripley's Believe It or Not!" strip recently?
- Larry