checking double for Inf or NaN - how?

  • Thread starter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Martin_J=F8rgensen?=
  • Start date
M

Malcolm

jacob navia said:
Richard Heathfield a écrit :

"Portability" for you means "taking the worst features of each
implementation".
That's inevitable. The convoy travels at the speed of the slowest ship.
 
J

jacob navia

Malcolm a écrit :
Implicit int was a fossil and it's time it went.
However prototypes are just a nuisance. There's some case for them in a
header file, where they describe the interface to the file, but the only
reason for them in other places is to allow the compiler to check arguments
on one pass. A modern compiler should be intelligent enough to do this
without a prototype to help it along.

Please think a bit Malcom.

To know the argument for a function without prototypes the compiler
should have the source code for all functions, including those in the
libraries the program is using. This would imply that the source code
for all the system would have to be processed, loaded into memory,
before any checks could be done.

This is completely impossible, so *some* type of prototype declaration
is needed. In Pascal you have the 'interface' declarations, in C# you
have a similar construct... etc!
 
A

Andrew Poelstra

Malcolm a écrit :

Please think a bit Malcom.

To know the argument for a function without prototypes the compiler
should have the source code for all functions, including those in the
libraries the program is using. This would imply that the source code
for all the system would have to be processed, loaded into memory,
before any checks could be done.

This is completely impossible, so *some* type of prototype declaration
is needed. In Pascal you have the 'interface' declarations, in C# you
have a similar construct... etc!
Not to mention the fact that maintenance programmers want a prototype
to give them some idea of how a function works!
 
M

Malcolm

jacob navia said:
Malcolm a écrit :

Please think a bit Malcom.

To know the argument for a function without prototypes the compiler should
have the source code for all functions, including those in the libraries
the program is using. This would imply that the source code for all the
system would have to be processed, loaded into memory, before any checks
could be done.

This is completely impossible, so *some* type of prototype declaration is
needed. In Pascal you have the 'interface' declarations, in C# you have a
similar construct... etc!
The library should contain information about the signature of the functions
it contains.

The problem might be the weight of libraries without this feature, and no
way of retrieving information from them.
 
R

Richard Heathfield

Malcolm said:

No, Richard Heathfield didn't write any of the stuff quoted in your article.
 
M

Malcolm

Richard Heathfield said:
Malcolm said:


No, Richard Heathfield didn't write any of the stuff quoted in your
article.
Think of the attribution lines as prototypes.
Initially I included the bit about implicit int, but then I realised that
jacob navia hadn't
mentioned that point, so I snipped it. But I forgot to update the
attributions.

That's the problem when you have information in two places at once.
 
R

Richard Heathfield

Default User said:
You going to sue him?

I wasn't planning on it, no. I don't consider litigation to be the best way
to settle Usenet disagreements.

But having said that... with a name like Malcolm, he's probably Scottish -
so maybe I'll make an exception in his case. :)
 
G

Gordon Burditt

Malcolm said:


No, Richard Heathfield didn't write any of the stuff quoted in your article.

This is a perfect example of why attribution = misattribution,
and I didn't have anything to do with prior articles in this thread.

Also, this is off-topic for comp.lang.c. Is there a alt.flame.attributions?

Gordon L. Burditt
 
F

Flash Gordon

Gordon said:
This is a perfect example of why attribution = misattribution,
and I didn't have anything to do with prior articles in this thread.

Also, this is off-topic for comp.lang.c. Is there a alt.flame.attributions?

It was a simple case of forgetting to do a final snip after deleting the
last piece of Richard's text. It did not lead to major disputes the way
you claim.
--
Flash Gordon, living in interesting times.
Web site - http://home.flash-gordon.me.uk/
comp.lang.c posting guidelines and intro:
http://clc-wiki.net/wiki/Intro_to_clc

Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php
 
C

CBFalconer

Gordon said:
This is a perfect example of why attribution = misattribution,
and I didn't have anything to do with prior articles in this thread.

If you look back at the original (long gone from here), you will
find their is no material preceded by n+1 '>'s, where n is the
number of '>'s preceding the Heathfield attribution. The system is
self correcting, and has sufficient redundancy to detect careless
snipping, as above.

Proper netiquette is always topical. Think correcting children.

--
Some informative links:
http://www.geocities.com/nnqweb/
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
 
J

Jordan Abel

This is a perfect example of why attribution = misattribution,
and I didn't have anything to do with prior articles in this thread.

The problem is that your solution [snip all attributions] is worse than
the problem. You should ONLY snip attributions that don't apply to
quoted text.
 
K

Keith Thompson

This is a perfect example of why attribution = misattribution,
and I didn't have anything to do with prior articles in this thread.

Somebody made the minor mistake of failing to snip a single
attribution line after having snipped all the corresponding text.
Richard pointed it out, and the whole thing was resolved without
threats or lawsuits.

You, on the other hand, repeatedly, consistently, and *deliberately*
make the far worse mistake of snipping all attributions, making
discussions more difficult to follow for everyone. I don't quite
agree with CBFalconer's statement in another thread that this is
plagiarism, but it is extremely rude.

Stop snipping attributions.
 
C

CBFalconer

Keith said:
.... snip ...

You, on the other hand, repeatedly, consistently, and *deliberately*
make the far worse mistake of snipping all attributions, making
discussions more difficult to follow for everyone. I don't quite
agree with CBFalconer's statement in another thread that this is
plagiarism, but it is extremely rude.

I said it "was tantamount to plagiarism". Several nits there.

--
Some informative links:
http://www.geocities.com/nnqweb/
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html
http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
 
R

Richard Heathfield

[Attributions have received a shave and a haircut.]

Gordon Burditt said:
This is a perfect example of why attribution = misattribution,

No, it's a perfect example of why misattribution = misattribution.
 
K

Keith Thompson

CBFalconer said:
I said it "was tantamount to plagiarism". Several nits there.

You also wrote:

| As I pointed out, quoting without attribution is effectively
| plagiarism. Every newsreader of which I am aware will construct the
| attribution lines automatically. There is no need to steal the
| words of others.

which is a stronger claim than "tantamount to plagiarism".

If he were posting others' remarks without marking them as quotations,
making them appear to be his own words, that would be plagiarism. In
my humble opinion, what he's actually doing is merely rude; there's no
appearance that other poster's words are actually his.

But I acknowedge that you didn't say that it actually *is* plagiarism,
and I don't think it's that important a point anyway. Plagiarism is a
legal term, and nobody is seriously threatening legal action. We're
both in complete agreement that he needs to stop snipping attributions
and/or give us a decent explanation (which he has so far failed to
do).
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top