C
CBFalconer
jacob said:
There are no such things as 'exceptions' in C. Thus off-topic.
See section 7.6.2 for the meaning of 'exception' in C.
... further annoying comments designed to start fights snipped ..
There are no such things as 'exceptions' in C. Thus off-topic.
See section 7.6.2 for the meaning of 'exception' in C.
... further annoying comments designed to start fights snipped ..
R
Richard Heathfield
jacob navia said:
That's at least partly because there isn't a charter, as you have been told
many times. But it's also because, when C programmers subscribe to a C
group, it is not unreasonable of them to expect to be able to recognise
the language being discussed, and that means treading very carefully with
extensions. If "C" means "any language with a vaguely C-like syntax" or
"any program acceptable to any compiler that can compile C", then Fortran
and C++ become topical here. Is that what you want?
A few weeks ago the group discussed topicality and whether they would like
it to change, and the overwhelming majority stated that they wished the
group to continue to restrict itself to K&R C and the various ISO
standards. If you wanted to loosen up the topicality requirements of this
group, that would have been a great time to make yourself heard, but IIRC
you did not do so. Even if you had taken part, however, you would have
been in the minority (as was I).
That's at least partly because there isn't a charter, as you have been told
many times. But it's also because, when C programmers subscribe to a C
group, it is not unreasonable of them to expect to be able to recognise
the language being discussed, and that means treading very carefully with
extensions. If "C" means "any language with a vaguely C-like syntax" or
"any program acceptable to any compiler that can compile C", then Fortran
and C++ become topical here. Is that what you want?
A few weeks ago the group discussed topicality and whether they would like
it to change, and the overwhelming majority stated that they wished the
group to continue to restrict itself to K&R C and the various ISO
standards. If you wanted to loosen up the topicality requirements of this
group, that would have been a great time to make yourself heard, but IIRC
you did not do so. Even if you had taken part, however, you would have
been in the minority (as was I).
F
Flash Gordon
jacob navia wrote, On 08/12/07 14:16:
I see you fail to address the point that your answer was irrelevant to
the question being asked.
The group ducked billed platypus also fails to mention it, possibly
because neither exist. However, extensions are not part of C, they are
extensions, that is why they are called extensions.
It is not available on any gcc variant under Windows that I am aware of,
I can't see it in the documentation for tcc. So that is two all
(counting all the gcc implementations for Windows as one). I could
easily find more (I have others in mind, I just can't be bothered to
check the documentation of them all).
Also this group is not Windows specific the last time I checked, and I
don't think it is a common extension to C when you look across the full
range of C implementations rather than the small subset that covers Windows.
The extension is off topic here, and the OP did not want to use your
compiler or the MS one, he wanted to use one that did not support the
extension.
Personally I would actually like a suitable try/catch mechanism added to
C, but my preferences to not control what is part of C.
I see you fail to address the point that your answer was irrelevant to
the question being asked.
The group ducked billed platypus also fails to mention it, possibly
because neither exist. However, extensions are not part of C, they are
extensions, that is why they are called extensions.
It is not available on any gcc variant under Windows that I am aware of,
I can't see it in the documentation for tcc. So that is two all
(counting all the gcc implementations for Windows as one). I could
easily find more (I have others in mind, I just can't be bothered to
check the documentation of them all).
Also this group is not Windows specific the last time I checked, and I
don't think it is a common extension to C when you look across the full
range of C implementations rather than the small subset that covers Windows.
The extension is off topic here, and the OP did not want to use your
compiler or the MS one, he wanted to use one that did not support the
extension.
Personally I would actually like a suitable try/catch mechanism added to
C, but my preferences to not control what is part of C.
T
Tor Rustad
If you are writing new code, it's better to avoid it and use standard C
methods for error handling.
If you are trying to compile some existing source, you could look into
an existing C library for ideas, see for example David R. Hanson CII
library, which came with his book "C Interfaces and Implementations".
My guess, is that it wouldn't be hard to rewrite the code.
K
Keith Thompson
[...]jacob navia said:
This newsgroup has no charter.
I know you've been told that a number of times. Apparently you just
haven't been told *enough* times. Let me know how many times you need
to be told that this newsgroup has no charter before you believe it,
and I'll be glad to send you an e-mail message that repeats the
statement "comp.lang.c has no charter" that many itmes.
J
jacob navia
Keith said:
Newsgroups : net.news.group, net.lang.c
From : eagle!jerry
Date : Fri Oct 22 01:28:04 1982
Local : Ven 22 oct 1982 01:28
Subject : C language newsgroup started
My suggestion for a "C" newsgroup met with support and no
opposition so net.lang.c (note lower case) has been created.
It's purpose is to carry on discussion of C programming and
the C programming language. Appropriate topics are
Queries on how to write something in C
Queries about why some C code behaves the way it does
Suggestions for C modifications or extensions
C coding "tricks"
Compiler bugs
Availability of compilers
etc.
Jerry Schwarz
BTL -- Murray Hill
harpo!eagle!jerry
This is the charter as I have told you countless times.
Please tell me how many times you need yet.
R
Richard Heathfield
jacob navia said:
Refer to the discussion we had the last time you trotted this out.
No, it isn't, as we have told you countless times.
Refer to the discussion we had the last time you trotted this out.
No, it isn't, as we have told you countless times.
R
Richard
Keith Thompson said:
The how come you and Heathfield seem to know so much about what can and
can not be posted? comp.lang.c. computers-language-c.
Some flexibility does no harm. It's why God gave us a brain and
newsreaders with "kill thread" functionality.
J
jacob navia
Richard said:
Who are you?
With what authority you tell me what the charter is?
At least I can present a document that is the charter according
to the founders of this group.
You can't.
You have just *your opinion* and the opinion of *your friends*.
I do not care about your opinion, neither the opinion of
your friends. And I do not give a dam either about your
insults campaign, done with anonymous posts.
Nobody has given you ANY authority to supervise this group. So you
either ignore my posts (your option) or you accept to discuss
about the ISSUES as I do.
Nowhere you say your opinion about exceptions in C, nor why
my proposed changes are wrong, nor anything of value.
All your posts are a sterile whining about "off topic"
!!!
J
James Kuyper
jacob said:
Who does he have to be, and by what authority do you require him to have
any particular identity?
What authority does he need to possess to point out flaws in your
argument? I thought that was the inherent right of all human beings.
The message you cited doesn't even contain the word "charter". To count
as a charter it should be publicly proposed, discussed, and voted on,
and the very message that you've cited implies that no such formal
process was used in this case.
M
Mark McIntyre
jacob said:
Right back at ya, baby.
The authority vested in one who is able to *read*.
The document you referenced is *not* a charter, not even according to
the founders of this group.
Opinion backed up by a) facts and b) peer review.
I've never met any of the regulars here. I've no idea if they'd be my
friends.
Irrespective, peer review is highly relevant. You may be utterly
indifferent to what others think, and believe your opinion is the only
one that matters, but you're in a minority.
It's well known that you're an arrogant, self-important and
self-opinionated person.
Either back that lie up, or stop repeating it.
And how about you? What gives you the right to go unchallenged against
the will of the majority? Why do you think you are allowed to ignore the
conventions and customs of the group?
J
jacob navia
James said:
Do not put things top down. I am just saying that precisely
he doesn't have any formal authority in this group
He doesn't propose any arguments precisely, just empty
"off topic according to my opinion" messages!
It is *the* founding message of this group.
If you wouldn't have snipped the text I posted you could have
read the following:
<quote>
My suggestion for a "C" newsgroup met with support and no
opposition so net.lang.c (note lower case) has been created.
I repeat:
<quote>
My suggestion for a "C" newsgroup met with support and no
opposition so net.lang.c (note lower case) has been created.
<end quote>
At that time this was a formal process of creating a group.
J
James Kuyper
jacob said:
I don't no what you mean by that.
No one does. So what difference would it have made what answer he gave?
If it was a rhetorical question, it was pointless, because he wasn't
doing anything that required that he have any authority.
Yes. That's not a charter.
The fact that I didn't copy that text did not in any way render me
incapable of reading it, and I did in fact do so.
It says "suggestion", "support", and "no opposition"; it does not say
"503 votes for, 0 votes against". He mentions no formal vote. You
mention no prior message establishing what it was they would have been
voting about; I presume you would have, if such a message had existed,
because it would have made a better argument for your point of view. It
sounds like a pretty informal process to me. You don't create a
newsgroup charter by a process that informal.
At that time, there was no such thing as a newsgroup charter, which is
precisely why the message you cite doesn't qualify as one.
M
Mark McIntyre
jacob said:
A Charter is not an email. It has a very specific meaning in usenet.
And even ignoring that, the first email in a discussion almost never
totally defines the outcome of that discussion.
I could send out an email today saying "hey, lets form a group to talk
about bladderworts and aardvarks", and after some discussion with my
peers we might decide to broaden scope to include all unusually-named
insectivores, or narrow it to only mobile ones.
You keep digging this out like it was a formal proof. This proves that
net.lang.c was created. It does not define the topic. That nobody
objected to the creation of the group does not mean that the topic was
formally set at that point.
And by the way over two decades have expired since that mail. The topic
has been refined, updated and confirmed multiple times since then.
I apprecate that you don't like the topic, I appreciate that you are
offended by being told you're offtopic, and I appreciate that you want
to control the topic yourself. I also appreciate that you are probably
the most obsessed person here, and simply can't let go despite being
almost universally opposed by some of hte planet's foremost experts.
But frankly, nobody cares. If you're upset, tough.
R
Richard
Mark McIntyre said:
I think, in your haste to suck up, you missed the point entirely. Jacob
is NOT ordering people around.
You think Jacob can not read?
It IS the originating charter. If you don't get locked up in word games.
What facts? What peers?
How ironic. Talk about wagging his tail to his masters voice.
Jacob is proposing a broader acceptance of C issues. This can only be a
good thing WHEN there is no suitable dedicated group. Not only that BUT
he *has* produced the original creation post.
All you have is RH's opinion and your own self regard.
J
jacob navia
James said:
But there was a very informal process when somebody proposed
creating a group, and since this group existed BEFORE the
formal process was designed, it is perfectly correct to use
that message as the charter of this group.
And in ANY case, I see no mention anywhere that there was
a voting process that would have conferred Mr Heathfield any
authority in this group whatsoever!
(and all his friends)
He believes that he can always destroy threads discussing
changes in the language, proposals about improving this
or that inconsistency, etc with his eternal "off topic"
whining.
What is on topic or not is not for Mr Heathfield to decide
I repeat: he has NO AUTHORITY here, in any case no more than
anyone else.
And I repeat again:
I will go on trying to bring this changes into C, and I beleiev this
group is the correct forum, and if someone doesn't like that it can
always use a killfile.
J
jacob navia
Richard said:
WORD GAMES. That is exactly their attitude.
"There is no stack in C"...
"strncpy is not a string function"
And all the similar discussions we had, where they use their
word games ad nauseum to impress newcomers or people that ask
simple questions with their pedantic display of "knowledge"...
And always refusing any discussion of the issues at hand. Even when
Heathfield himself says that one of the things that bothers him in C
is the lack of operator overloading, he refuses to engage in any
discussion about it where the ISSUES at hand would be discussed.
When we discussed this in comp.std.c he could only master apityful
post where he tried to insult me/ridiculing my arguments without
proposing anything of substantial value.
J
jacob navia
Mark said:
yes it was:
<quote>
It's purpose is to carry on discussion of C programming and
the C programming language. Appropriate topics are
Queries on how to write something in C
Queries about why some C code behaves the way it does
Suggestions for C modifications or extensions
C coding "tricks"
Compiler bugs
Availability of compilers
etc.
There is no vote nor document that I know of doing that, this is YOUR
OPINION and that's all.
"... the planet's formeots experts"
WOW
Well, after that page of self publicity I will zap
mind you?
R
Richard Heathfield
jacob navia said:
Words are important. The word "charter" has a very precise meaning on
Usenet, and the presented document does not qualify as a charter.
There is a point to such a statement; it is an attempt to counter the "all
the world's a Vax" attitude that so many people have.
It has been explained many times why strncpy is not a string function.
I can't speak for others, but I know that the above paragraph does not
describe me. I give C answers to people who ask C questions because I want
to help them to learn about C.
If I have anything to say about possible future changes to the C language,
I'll say it in comp.std.c, where it is topical, rather than here. Would
that others would do the same.
There are plenty of people in comp.std.c who are much better able than I am
to propose substantial, valuable changes to the C language. I'll let them
get on with it.
Words are important. The word "charter" has a very precise meaning on
Usenet, and the presented document does not qualify as a charter.
There is a point to such a statement; it is an attempt to counter the "all
the world's a Vax" attitude that so many people have.
It has been explained many times why strncpy is not a string function.
I can't speak for others, but I know that the above paragraph does not
describe me. I give C answers to people who ask C questions because I want
to help them to learn about C.
If I have anything to say about possible future changes to the C language,
I'll say it in comp.std.c, where it is topical, rather than here. Would
that others would do the same.
There are plenty of people in comp.std.c who are much better able than I am
to propose substantial, valuable changes to the C language. I'll let them
get on with it.
J
James Kuyper
jacob navia wrote:
....
No, the only correct thing to say is that is has no charter, only an
informal statement of purpose.
Agreed.
....
No, the only correct thing to say is that is has no charter, only an
informal statement of purpose.
Agreed.