Has ANSI Approved ISO/IEC 9899:1999?

[Richard Heathfield]

[sticking to the C bits here]

jacob navia said:

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.

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

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]

Obvious. He is the only one that posted an approval. He was the
only one that approved the insults campaign to my daughter.

"When two people are gathered in my name, then they must be sockpuppets."

 

[Philip Potter]

jacob navia wrote:



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.

Thirded. I think it would be a terrible shame if you were to leave this
group.

 

[Joe Wright]

"I am not a crook."

Plagiarist?

 

[Keith Thompson]

Kenny McCormack wrote: [snip]
Plagiarist?

One more time: *Please* don't feed the troll.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

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]

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?

Maybe this would be answered quicker over in comp.std.c ?

- Larry

 

[Richard]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

Have we been featured in a "Ripley's Believe It or Not!" strip recently?

- Larry