How come C allow structure members to be addressed like an array ?

[Kenny McCormack]

I suspect someone that advocates harm to minority groups couldn't care
less one way or another.

Um, NOBODY cares who is or isn't in anyone else's killfile.

Whether it has anything to do with any particular subject is so not
relevant...

 

[Kenny McCormack]

<snip>

[a list of peoples Tomas O'Eilidhe isn't bigoted about]

That's a pretty good "tolerance track record" if you ask me. And it's
not like I'm about to start a campaign for Ethnic cleansing... I'm
just not going to let a Roma gypsie near me ever again.

In my country (UK) you'd have problems with the law for behaving the
way you propose (and a good thing too).

Changing the subject line is very, very bad form for those of us who
killfile based on subject. Please do not do it.

Grow up and get a threaded newsreader.

(I am a strong believer in changing the Subject lines as appropriate as
threads evolve and change)

 

[Richard]

<snip>

[a list of peoples Tomas O'Eilidhe isn't bigoted about]

That's a pretty good "tolerance track record" if you ask me. And it's
not like I'm about to start a campaign for Ethnic cleansing... I'm
just not going to let a Roma gypsie near me ever again.

In my country (UK) you'd have problems with the law for behaving the
way you propose (and a good thing too).

Changing the subject line is very, very bad form for those of us who
killfile based on subject. Please do not do it.

Grow up and get a threaded newsreader.

(I am a strong believer in changing the Subject lines as appropriate as
threads evolve and change)

This thread did not evolve and change. It was already getting nasty so I
binned it.

 

[Tomás Ó hÉilidhe]

I realise this entire thread is a farce, but I find it amusing and
entertaining so I'm going to roll with it... :-D

It's nice you do not bear malice to these people that people come in
to take jobs locals do not want. Or cannot do. Or do not want to do
because  it's a family tradition, ie the family tradition of a lot of
people who live in say, Ballymun or someplace like that (4-5th gen
 unemployed), living off my tax euro.

My local video store has a few Polish people working there. Before I
started my own business recently I wanted to do some part-time work
just to keep me going. But alas, the jobs were taken by foreigners.

Ireland's in the EU now. The EU is multicultural and multiracial.
Tough, but you'll get used to it as others have.

It's all about the ratio. At the moment in Ireland, more than 1 in 10
people is Polish. Now I've nothing against the Polish, but I think
we've been more than generous by allowing our own native population to
drop to 90%. We have enough foreigners here.

I wonder what Tom would say about our local 'gypsies' the tinkers.

They like to be called "Travellers". Ten years ago, I despised them,
but in recent years they've come along nicely. They're sending their
kids to school now and they're actually finishing school and going on
to get apprenticeships. Unfortunately though, the travellers in the
countryside are still living their career criminal lives.

If the Roma gypsies stop abusing their kids and actually start sending
them to school, my opinion of them will change.

That's real funny, I would have thought Stephen McAteer would have
been
clearly an Irish name.

Sort of. It's clearly a pure-bred Irish name that was Anglisiced, but
still if it were 100% Irish it would be Stiofán Mac an tSaoir (which
by the way is a surname you can actually take meaning from).

Tell me, were you born with your gailge spelling or did you just
change
your name?

My birthcert has an English name on it. I changed it to Irish a few
years ago. Now I've got everything in Irish, including my passport.

A lot of these people would have the names they were born with

I am.

In all likelihood you probably were as well. I am guessing. I
could be wrong, you may have been so unhappy you changed your
name. Fair enuf.

I wasn't so much unhappy, more like I felt misrepresented by an
English name. I'm fluent in Irish, I'm proud to be Irish... yet I had
this English name. Just didn't fit.

I am Irish, I do not speak Irish. I am patriotic enough that I do
want what's best for Ireland on the whole. Good job on the Lisbon
treaty.

I didn't even vote for the simple reason that I didn't know anything
about it. I heard something about more taxes and losing neutrality in
war... but that's all. I heard the treaty's a couple of hundred pages
long so I just gave up on it.

But my xenophobia only extends so far.

I welcome a multicultural Ireland, not grudgingly accept it, as
one may construe from your post.

Again, it's about the ratio. I don't want to see an Ireland that's 80%
Irish. I was in a pub in Cork city recently and there were more Polish
than Irish in the place (and this was a pretty big pub).

 

[Richard]

I realise this entire thread is a farce, but I find it amusing and
entertaining so I'm going to roll with it... :-D

What you mean is that you landed yourself in the doggy doo and are now
trying to get out of it by being purposely "extreme" to mask the real
extremities of your views. It won't wash.

 

[Tomás Ó hÉilidhe]

What you mean is that you landed yourself in the doggy doo and are now
trying to get out of it by being purposely "extreme" to mask the real
extremities of your views. It won't wash.

I'm racist against Roma gypsies. Can't be more direct than that about
it.

 

[Antoninus Twink]

Stop talking about the "Roma gypsies", right now. Don't respond to
this. Don't try to defend your opinions. Just shut the hell up about
it.

However unpleasant you may find Thomas's racist views, don't you believe
even more strongly that he has a right to free speech?

 

[santosh]

However unpleasant you may find Thomas's racist views, don't you
believe even more strongly that he has a right to free speech?

Again you fail to understand that there is such a thing called
topicality. Even you must admit that the current subject is simply not
topical in clc. And it's not hair-splitting or pedanticism either. The
subject is *massively* off-topic.

Why not move it to soc.culture.irish or somewhere similar?

 

[Antoninus Twink]

Again you fail to understand that there is such a thing called
topicality. Even you must admit that the current subject is simply not
topical in clc. And it's not hair-splitting or pedanticism either. The
subject is *massively* off-topic.

Why not tell that to Richard Heathfield, Keith Thompson, Flash Gordon,
CBFalconer, Nick Keighley, and one... santosh, who have all taken an
active part in this discussion?

 

[vippstar]

troll wrote:

Again you fail to understand that there is such a thing called
topicality. Even you must admit that the current subject is simply not
topical in clc. And it's not hair-splitting or pedanticism either. The
subject is *massively* off-topic.

Why not move it to soc.culture.irish or somewhere similar?

santosh, he does understand that. He's a troll, remember? ;-)
Let's just let this thread die peacefully... as you noted such
discussions are massively off-topic, and people can be quite
passionate about them so it's best to just let the topic die.

 

[Richard Tobin]

However unpleasant you may find Thomas's racist views, don't you believe
even more strongly that he has a right to free speech?

How does telling someone not to say something infringe on their right
to free speech?

-- Richard

 

[lawrence.jones]

and so it would be unreasonable for the padding of
successive members of the same type in a struct to be different from
that in an array - which is to say, there should be no padding between
fields of the same type.

Can anyone come up with a reason (other than perverseness) why an
implementation would not do this?

Performance. If, for example, word-aligned accesses are more efficient
than non-aligned accesses, an implementation may want to align each
member on at least a word boundary. I know of at least one real
implementation that did, in fact, behave that way. Of course, that
would almost certainly not affect doubles (which tend to have the
strictest alignment requirements anyway), but it might well affect chars
and shorts.

-- Larry Jones

Mom would be a lot more fun if she was a little more gullible. -- Calvin

 

[pereges]

I think I will use an array and forget about it all together.

typedef struct _vector
{
double coord[3];
}vector;

 

[Keith Thompson]

I think I will use an array and forget about it all together.

typedef struct _vector
{
double coord[3];
}vector;

Great. But why use the name "_vector"? If you insist on having
disinct names for the struct tag and the typedef, you could use a
trailing underscore or a "_s" suffix. For that matter, you could
just drop the struct tag:

typedef struct {
double coord[3];
} vector;

(Or you could drop the typedef and just call it "struct vector".)

Names starting with underscores should generally be avoided. I
*think* this one is ok, but the fact that I'm not sure without further
thought is a clue that it's easier just to avoid leading underscores
altogether.

 

[pereges]

Great. But why use the name "_vector"? If you insist on having
disinct names for the struct tag and the typedef, you could use a
trailing underscore or a "_s" suffix. For that matter, you could
just drop the struct tag:

typedef struct {
double coord[3];
} vector;

The only reason why I do it is because some times I have come across
situations which require self referential structures.

eg.
typedef struct _tree
{
struct _tree *left;
struct _tree *right;
int data;
}tree;

Not that I will always encounter a situation like this, but I just
tried to keep the naming technique consistent.

(Or you could drop the typedef and just call it "struct vector".)

Names starting with underscores should generally be avoided. I
*think* this one is ok, but the fact that I'm not sure without further
thought is a clue that it's easier just to avoid leading underscores
altogether.

Why drop the typedef ? I thought certain expressions would be more
concise.

 

[Richard Bos]

Great. But why use the name "_vector"? If you insist on having
disinct names for the struct tag and the typedef, you could use a
trailing underscore or a "_s" suffix. For that matter, you could
just drop the struct tag:

typedef struct {
double coord[3];
} vector;

The only reason why I do it is because some times I have come across
situations which require self referential structures.

Why bother making them different in the first place? struct names live
in a namespace of their own; you can easily do

typedef struct tree {
struct tree *left;
struct tree *right;
unsigned long payload;
} tree;

It's quite legal.

Richard

 

[santosh]

Why not tell that to Richard Heathfield, Keith Thompson, Flash Gordon,
CBFalconer, Nick Keighley, and one... santosh, who have all taken an
active part in this discussion?

Because you were the only one to protest against Keith Thompson's
request to Tomás to observe his own statement to cease the conversation
due to it's off-topic nature. No one has to my knowledge disputed
Tomás's right to air his opinions. It's just a matter of respecting
topicality, which even Tomás agrees with. You of course would like all
discussions on all possible subjects to take place in clc. What's the
matter, doesn't your Usenet server carry any other group beside clc?

 

[santosh]

santosh said:

I agree that it's off-topic. For once I actually agree with Mr Twink,
too: Tomas has the right to peddle his revolting opinions in public if
he wishes.

Yes of course.

But we are not obliged to listen. And this is supposed to
be a techie group, not a sounding-board for racists.

My point exactly, and I suspect Keith's too.

I think it would be more appropriate to move it to alt.racist.bigot,
don't you?

Perhaps. But if enough Irish do have broadly similar sentiments as Tomás
(and I'm not saying that they do or not do) then it might reasonably be
considered as topical in a group dealing with Irish society.

 

[Richard]

Because you were the only one to protest against Keith Thompson's
request to Tomás to observe his own statement to cease the conversation
due to it's off-topic nature. No one has to my knowledge disputed
Tomás's right to air his opinions. It's just a matter of respecting
topicality, which even Tomás agrees with. You of course would like all
discussions on all possible subjects to take place in clc. What's the
matter, doesn't your Usenet server carry any other group beside clc?

You seem to have missed the point. Having elevated yourself into the
ranks of the pedantic "regs" you feel it is OK for YOU to post OT to
threads which are considered "OT" in c.l.c.

Having said that Tomas' thread was highly unsavoury and would not really
be welcome anywhere.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Antoninus Twink wrote: [more of the same]
Because you were the only one to protest against Keith Thompson's
request to Tomás to observe his own statement to cease the conversation
due to it's off-topic nature. No one has to my knowledge disputed
Tomás's right to air his opinions. It's just a matter of respecting
topicality, which even Tomás agrees with. You of course would like all
discussions on all possible subjects to take place in clc. What's the
matter, doesn't your Usenet server carry any other group beside clc?

santosh, please don't feed the troll.