how can I test for backspace if( (c = getchar()) == '\b' )

[Ben Pfaff]

Don't worry, someone will fill the void (NPI).

void is an incomplete type that cannot be filled.

 

[Randy Howard]

void is an incomplete type that cannot be filled.

ack. I knew that was going to backfire.

 

[Richard Bos]

It seems to me that there is room and call for a newsgroup, perhaps
"comp.lang.c.portable", perhaps some other name, that allows
discussion of C programs which are intended to fit within well-
defined international standards such as the IEC/ISO standards,
including POSIX.*.

This is a very old joke, and we no longer find it funny.

Richard

 

[Default User]

:You are attempting to change prevailing
:sentiment on topicality.

Thinking about what you wrote, I think you are correct. It isn't
the topicality itself that I would necessarily see changed, but rather,
just as you say, the -sentiment- about the topicality. As in
how people feel -about- topicality, and thus the manner in which
they react when something is not within the scope of what can,
in a practical sense, be handled in the newsgroup.

I'm not trying to reopen wounds here, after a pleasant weekend away
(the second Saturday in row that allowed shirtsleeve BBQ action in St.
Loo).

However, as pointed out elsewhere, this group has no charter. So the
only real guide to topicality *is* prevailing sentiment. You should
understand that my very first post to this group many moons ago was
off-topic. The difference was that I accepted that and apologized, not
for posting off-topic exactly but for not taking the time to find out
what the rules were.

I have no objection at all to a group saying "This particular subject
is our area of expertise, and considering the volumes of postings,
on the whole most people here do not have time to pay attention to
much that lays outside of that area."

But that would be false. Indeed many people here do have expertise in
the areas asked about, but they respect the majority wishes and
redirect the poster to a more appropriate group, like
comp.unix.programmer for POSIX questions.

What I have not liked, though, is some of the manners in which
other topics are dismissed, which at times becomes reminiscent of
a butler looking down his nose and sniffing at the presumption that
one of the "lower classes" would ask him for directions.

Some people are not as pleasant as they could be. That is almost a
truism in society. For the most part, the people here handly off-topic
requests pretty well. The problem is, some people feel that "no" is
impolite, and scream "flame" when told their question is inappropriate
and will not be answered here. We also tend to get more brusque when
the same person continually violates topicality after being informed of
the general wishes of the group.

:You will not succeed.

The evidence is certainly suggesting that I am not succeeding ;-)

You will not. That's a prediction you can bank. It's certainly not the
first this has come up, others have made essentially the same
arguments. The majority are unmoved.

:Continuing to pursue is
etulant and disgraceful on your part. You should stop now and
:apologize, as a professional should. I hold out little hope.

I make no apology for suggesting that people be treated with more
consideration.

That was not your original contention, nor did it have anything to do
with what I said. Please don't change the debate. If you want to
criticize some specific (and better be prepared to indicate which)
instances of discourteous behavior, I'm with you.

That's not what we were discussing.



Brian

 

[Fao, Sean]

:On 11 Feb 2005 22:47:52 GMT, in comp.lang.c , (e-mail address removed)-cnrc.gc.ca
Walter Roberson) wrote:

:>The newsgroup has *not* "always" been
:>only about "conforming" C.

:True. But it *has* been about that since very early on indeed.

Well, that's progress, that you admit now that there were topics
that were deemed suitable at one time, but which a number of people
appear to deem inappropriate now.

Deemed inappropriate in an attempt to keep clc under control. Take a
walk over to microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.* and read their
messages. They permit pretty much everything. The regulars consist of
three kinds of people. The most common are idiot "programmers" that
wouldn't last a day if it weren't for newsgroup posters to write their
programs for them. The second is made up of people that think they can
program, but have very little background and understanding. They
commonly get the job done; but in an *extremely* inefficient manner.
The third group of people makes up a very small percentage of the group.
These are the real software engineers that actually have an
understanding and can write decent software. Unfortunately, however,
their messages are often lost in all the madness.

comp.lang.c has the above three groups, as well; but, the largest
percentage of regulars *do* know what they're talking about and have no
problem presenting facts/opinions when something is wrong.