New from the standards committee

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by jacob navia, Nov 4, 2009.

  1. jacob navia

    jacob navia Guest

    Mr Lawrence Jones wrote in a message in this group

    <quote>
    ....the latest draft (N1401) now spells it out explicitly (and more
    restrictively):

    If any of the fields of the broken-down time contain values that
    are outside their normal ranges, the behavior of the asctime
    function is undefined. Likewise, if the calculated year exceeds
    four digits or is less than the year 1000, the behavior is
    undefined.

    You'll be happy to know that the committee just voted (unanimously, as
    it turns out) to remove gets() from the draft as well.
    <end quote>

    I think that the committee has done an excellent decision in both issues.

    It could mean that buffer overflows and correct function specification are
    going to have more weight in the decisions of the committee that they have
    had till now.

    It could mean also that all those discussions here and in comp.std.c were
    NOT just wasted time, and that trying to reason with the committee members
    is possible.

    Mr Jones continued:

    "So what are you going to complain about now?"

    I have to concede that my two best battle horses have been killed...

    :)

    I have still other complaints but it is clear that they do not have
    the urgency of those two. Other complaints are much more a matter of
    opinion.

    I thank the committee members for their work.

    Jacob
    jacob navia, Nov 4, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. jacob navia

    frank Guest

    On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:15:11 +0100, jacob navia wrote:

    > Mr Lawrence Jones wrote in a message in this group
    >
    > <quote>
    > ...the latest draft (N1401) now spells it out explicitly (and more
    > restrictively):
    >
    > If any of the fields of the broken-down time
    > contain values that are outside their normal ranges,
    > the behavior of the asctime function is undefined.
    > Likewise, if the calculated year exceeds four digits or
    > is less than the year 1000, the behavior is undefined.


    That's worth quoting. I think that if you have a time-sensitive problem,
    you have to find the syntax that fits. I wouldn't do carbon-dating in C
    and hope that I had achieved something portable. For what I am studying
    to do, a syntax that measures only in seconds and can last for a hundred
    years is just fine.
    --
    frank

    "Rape: is it too much to ask for corporations who bid on federal
    contracts to refrain from?"
    frank, Nov 5, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. jacob navia

    jacob navia Guest

    frank a écrit :
    > On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:15:11 +0100, jacob navia wrote:
    >
    >> Mr Lawrence Jones wrote in a message in this group
    >>
    >> <quote>
    >> ...the latest draft (N1401) now spells it out explicitly (and more
    >> restrictively):
    >>
    >> If any of the fields of the broken-down time
    >> contain values that are outside their normal ranges,
    >> the behavior of the asctime function is undefined.
    >> Likewise, if the calculated year exceeds four digits or
    >> is less than the year 1000, the behavior is undefined.

    >
    > That's worth quoting. I think that if you have a time-sensitive problem,
    > you have to find the syntax that fits. I wouldn't do carbon-dating in C
    > and hope that I had achieved something portable. For what I am studying
    > to do, a syntax that measures only in seconds and can last for a hundred
    > years is just fine.


    You can do carbon dating in C. The structure tm can be dimensioned as you
    wish. We are speaking about asctime() here, that has a fixed size buffer.

    Nothing would be wrong if you used strftime and a suitable dimensioned
    struct tm.
    jacob navia, Nov 5, 2009
    #3
  4. jacob navia

    jacob navia Guest

    The sound of silence

    It is interesting to note the silence of some people.

    A resounding silence.
    jacob navia, Nov 5, 2009
    #4
  5. jacob navia

    Tom St Denis Guest

    Re: The sound of silence

    On Nov 5, 9:25 am, jacob navia <> wrote:
    > It is interesting to note the silence of some people.
    >
    > A resounding silence.


    Didn't care before for the asctime bug in the C99 spec, don't care
    now, won't care later.

    How's that for silence?

    Tom
    Tom St Denis, Nov 5, 2009
    #5
  6. Re: The sound of silence

    jacob navia <> writes:
    > It is interesting to note the silence of some people.
    >
    > A resounding silence.


    I suspect I'm not the only person who has no idea what you're
    referring to. Can you clarify?

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Nokia
    "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
    Keith Thompson, Nov 5, 2009
    #6
  7. jacob navia

    Seebs Guest

    Re: The sound of silence

    On 2009-11-05, Keith Thompson <> wrote:
    > jacob navia <> writes:
    >> It is interesting to note the silence of some people.
    >>
    >> A resounding silence.

    >
    > I suspect I'm not the only person who has no idea what you're
    > referring to. Can you clarify?


    I assume there must be at least one person who didn't care about this issue,
    who has not reacted with horror or outrage to the committee fixing it, from
    which doubtless some kind of inference could be drawn?

    I didn't think this was a significant issue, and I still pretty much don't,
    but I'm glad to see it fixed up. I might have been marginally happier with
    a fix which involved requiring asctime not to be a festering sore on the
    language's rear end, but I think that's probably not worth it -- I am pretty
    sure everyone sane moved to strftime years ago.

    -s
    --
    Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach /
    http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
    Seebs, Nov 5, 2009
    #7
  8. Re: The sound of silence

    Seebs <> writes:
    > On 2009-11-05, Keith Thompson <> wrote:
    >> jacob navia <> writes:
    >>> It is interesting to note the silence of some people.
    >>>
    >>> A resounding silence.

    >>
    >> I suspect I'm not the only person who has no idea what you're
    >> referring to. Can you clarify?

    >
    > I assume there must be at least one person who didn't care about this issue,
    > who has not reacted with horror or outrage to the committee fixing it, from
    > which doubtless some kind of inference could be drawn?


    "This issue" being asctime(), I suppose?

    Yeah, that's probably what he meant, but I didn't want to assume it in
    the absence of any clear statement.

    [...]

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Nokia
    "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
    Keith Thompson, Nov 5, 2009
    #8
  9. Re: The sound of silence

    Keith Thompson <> writes:
    > jacob navia <> writes:
    >> It is interesting to note the silence of some people.
    >>
    >> A resounding silence.

    >
    > I suspect I'm not the only person who has no idea what you're
    > referring to. Can you clarify?


    Oh, I see. jacob changed the subject header from "New from the
    standards committee" to "The sound of silence". Since I had already
    read all the previous messages in the thread, my newsreader showed
    me jacob's followup as if it were the first article in a new thread.
    I could have discovered this if I had looked at the Reference header
    or used my newsreader's command to go back to the parent article,
    but I had no reason to think it was necessary.

    So jacob was talking about the alleged lack of reaction to Lawrence
    Jones's announcement regarding asctime. (In fact, there were
    several comments. I won't speculate further.)

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Nokia
    "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
    Keith Thompson, Nov 7, 2009
    #9
  10. jacob navia

    frank Guest

    Re: The sound of silence

    On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:00:26 -0800, Keith Thompson wrote:

    > Seebs <> writes:
    >> On 2009-11-05, Keith Thompson <> wrote:
    >>> jacob navia <> writes:
    >>>> It is interesting to note the silence of some people.
    >>>>
    >>>> A resounding silence.
    >>>
    >>> I suspect I'm not the only person who has no idea what you're
    >>> referring to. Can you clarify?

    >>
    >> I assume there must be at least one person who didn't care about this
    >> issue, who has not reacted with horror or outrage to the committee
    >> fixing it, from which doubtless some kind of inference could be drawn?

    >
    > "This issue" being asctime(), I suppose?
    >
    > Yeah, that's probably what he meant, but I didn't want to assume it in
    > the absence of any clear statement.
    >
    > [...]


    I'm certain we're all grateful for jacob's attention to the committee.
    If people like jacob didn't pay attention, there wouldn't be a committee.

    Plauger says "call asctime if you want the English-language form
    regardless of current locale." I would have to think that you wouldn't
    need a lot of flexibility for this.

    "The sound of silence" makes a great karaoke song for a guy and a gal. I
    think I sang Art Garfunkel's part one octave lower. "The words of the
    profits are written on the subway wall."
    --
    frank

    "Guns: yes, they are harmful."
    frank, Nov 14, 2009
    #10
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. David Abrahams

    ANSI/ISO C++ committee website moved

    David Abrahams, May 12, 2004, in forum: C++
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    343
    David Abrahams
    May 12, 2004
  2. David Eng
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    796
    Dietmar Kuehl
    Jul 12, 2004
  3. Anonymous Infidel
    Replies:
    35
    Views:
    1,001
    James Kanze
    Apr 4, 2009
  4. Thomas J. Gritzan
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    286
    Anonymous Infidel
    Mar 29, 2009
  5. Rui Maciel
    Replies:
    37
    Views:
    315
    Alf P. Steinbach
    Jan 10, 2014
Loading...

Share This Page