Order of passing of parameters?

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Tagore, Dec 24, 2008.

  1. Tagore

    Tagore Guest

    According to my C text book
    "parameters are passed to a called function by pushing them on the
    stack from right to left."

    but in a C forum I found that order of passing of parameters are
    undefined.

    Which of the following statement about order of parameter passing is
    correct?
    1) statement given in my C text book.
    2) It is undefined.
    3) It is implementation defined.
     
    Tagore, Dec 24, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Tagore

    Ben Pfaff Guest

    Tagore <> writes:

    > According to my C text book
    > "parameters are passed to a called function by pushing them on the
    > stack from right to left."
    >
    > but in a C forum I found that order of passing of parameters are
    > undefined.


    The order of evaluation of a function's arguments is not
    specified by the standard. As C99 says:

    10 The order of evaluation of the function designator, the actual
    arguments, and subexpressions within the actual arguments is
    unspecified, but there is a sequence point before the actual
    call.

    The mechanism used by an implementation to pass arguments to a
    function is also not specified by the standard. It is quite
    possible that your implementation pushes them on a stack in
    right-to-left order. Other implementations might pass some
    arguments in machine registers or some completely different
    mechanism.
    --
    char a[]="\n .CJacehknorstu";int putchar(int);int main(void){unsigned long b[]
    ={0x67dffdff,0x9aa9aa6a,0xa77ffda9,0x7da6aa6a,0xa67f6aaa,0xaa9aa9f6,0x11f6},*p
    =b,i=24;for(;p+=!*p;*p/=4)switch(0[p]&3)case 0:{return 0;for(p--;i--;i--)case+
    2:{i++;if(i)break;else default:continue;if(0)case 1:putchar(a[i&15]);break;}}}
     
    Ben Pfaff, Dec 24, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Tagore

    James Harris Guest

    On 24 Dec, 18:08, Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
    ....
    > The formal term for situations where the implementation has free
    > rein to do as it likes *provided* the correct effect is achieved,
    > and where it doesn't has to document its choice, is "unspecified
    > behavior" (alas, no 'u' in "behavior" because - well, because!).


    OT. I'd heard that American spelling was due to Webster (he of the
    dictionary fame - remember "Morocco bound" and all that? Older readers
    may) making a concious choice to educate Americans with spellings of
    his own choosing.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster

    seems to agree. (I don't know if it's true or not.) Under the heading
    "Speller and dictionary" it says, in part:

    Slowly, he changed the spelling of words, such that they became
    'Americanized'. He chose s over c in words like defense; he changed
    the re to er in words like center; he dropped one of the Ls in
    traveller; at first, he kept the u in words like colour or favour, but
    he dropped it in later editions.

    If true it's rather annoying that someone should choose his own
    opinions about how a language should be changed. As has been said
    Brits and Americans are two groups of people separated by a common
    tongue.

    Speaking of tongue (amazing how these links are so seamless :)) the
    same paragraph says

    He also changed "tongue" to "tung."

    I can't believe that's right.....

    James
     
    James Harris, Dec 24, 2008
    #3
  4. Tagore

    user923005 Guest

    On Dec 24, 9:51 am, Tagore <> wrote:
    > According to my C text book
    >  "parameters are passed to a called function by pushing them on the
    > stack from right to left."
    >
    > but in a C forum I found that order of passing of parameters are
    > undefined.


    Unspecified

    > Which of the following statement about order of parameter passing is
    > correct?
    > 1) statement given in my C text book.
    > 2) It is undefined.
    > 3) It is implementation defined.


    The closest to correct is #3, but #1 is an often true generalization
    (which can get you into trouble, of course, if you think it is always
    true). #2 is simply wrong.
    One compiler that I have will pass the parameters three different
    ways, depending upon how I request. I usually choose passing
    parameters as registers where possible when I have a choice.

    For most implementations, if you do not specify any special options,
    the parameters will be pushed onto the stack, along with the address
    of the function and any local variables. It is important to
    understand this general idea so you can recognize that deeply
    recursive programs may cause problems if there are a great number of
    parameters and lots of large local variables and things of that
    nature. However, your C book does you a disservice by making the
    statement as though it were a fact that is always true.

    The language itself does not even insist that C has a stack at all
    (indeed, there are machines with C compilers that definitely do not
    possess a hardware stack).

    Here is what is crucial for you to understand about function
    parameters:
    In C they are all pushed by value. Even an address is passed as a
    copy, so if you want to change an address that you pass you need to
    pass the address of the address. The rest of the details about how
    the arguments get from the caller to the function are system/compiler
    specific and you will need to read and understand the documentation to
    be absolutely sure that you understand how it works.
     
    user923005, Dec 24, 2008
    #4
  5. Tagore

    jameskuyper Guest

    James Harris wrote:
    > On 24 Dec, 18:08, Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
    > ...
    > > The formal term for situations where the implementation has free
    > > rein to do as it likes *provided* the correct effect is achieved,
    > > and where it doesn't has to document its choice, is "unspecified
    > > behavior" (alas, no 'u' in "behavior" because - well, because!).

    >
    > OT. I'd heard that American spelling was due to Webster (he of the
    > dictionary fame - remember "Morocco bound" and all that? Older readers
    > may) making a concious choice to educate Americans with spellings of
    > his own choosing.
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster
    >
    > seems to agree. (I don't know if it's true or not.) Under the heading
    > "Speller and dictionary" it says, in part:
    >
    > Slowly, he changed the spelling of words, such that they became
    > 'Americanized'. He chose s over c in words like defense; he changed
    > the re to er in words like center; he dropped one of the Ls in
    > traveller; at first, he kept the u in words like colour or favour, but
    > he dropped it in later editions.
    >
    > If true it's rather annoying that someone should choose his own
    > opinions about how a language should be changed. As has been said
    > Brits and Americans are two groups of people separated by a common
    > tongue.


    Keep in mind that he wasn't making these choices in a vacuum.
    Webster's choices were very influential, but only because people in
    the US were in a mood to be influenced in that fashion. They were
    rather angry at the Brits, and not too happy with the rest of Europe,
    either (yes, I'm well aware of British attitudes toward the use of the
    word "Europe" to include the British Isles - but the people I'm
    describing would not have cared about that). If they'd been happy,
    they wouldn't have left. Therefore, they were actively looking for
    ways to distance themselves from Britain in particular, and Europe in
    general. A lot of other customs were deliberately changed around the
    same time, for the same reason, including even such things as the
    etiquette rules for using knives and forks at formal dining occasions.

    > Speaking of tongue (amazing how these links are so seamless :)) the
    > same paragraph says
    >
    > He also changed "tongue" to "tung."
    >
    > I can't believe that's right.....


    If he did, it didn't take; that's not the way we spell it here now.
     
    jameskuyper, Dec 24, 2008
    #5
  6. Tagore

    CBFalconer Guest

    [OT] English spelling (was: Order of passing of parameters?)

    James Harris wrote:
    >

    .... snip ...
    >
    > OT. I'd heard that American spelling was due to Webster (he of
    > the dictionary fame - remember "Morocco bound" and all that?
    > Older readers may) making a concious choice to educate Americans
    > with spellings of his own choosing.
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noah_Webster
    >
    > seems to agree. (I don't know if it's true or not.) Under the
    > heading "Speller and dictionary" it says, in part:
    >
    > Slowly, he changed the spelling of words, such that they became
    > 'Americanized'. He chose s over c in words like defense; he
    > changed the re to er in words like center; he dropped one of the
    > Ls in traveller; at first, he kept the u in words like colour or
    > favour, but he dropped it in later editions.
    >
    > If true it's rather annoying that someone should choose his own
    > opinions about how a language should be changed. As has been
    > said Brits and Americans are two groups of people separated by
    > a common tongue.
    >
    > Speaking of tongue (amazing how these links are so seamless :))
    > the same paragraph says
    >
    > He also changed "tongue" to "tung."


    When I was young we had a 1908 Funk & Wagnals Encyclopaedia
    around. That was an American edition. It was full of 'tho',
    'thru', and similar spelling revisions. I think it finally got
    lost about 4 years ago when I closed down our home for the past 40
    years after my wifes death, and had to be vicious. The book
    collection was seriously damaged.

    --
    Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukah, Happy New Year
    Joyeux Noel, Bonne Annee, Frohe Weihnachten
    Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
    <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
     
    CBFalconer, Dec 25, 2008
    #6
  7. On Dec 25, 1:44 am, James Harris <>
    wrote:

    >    Slowly, he changed the spelling of words, such that they became
    > 'Americanized'. He chose s over c in words like defense; he changed
    > the re to er in words like center; he dropped one of the Ls in
    > traveller; at first, he kept the u in words like colour or favour, but
    > he dropped it in later editions.




    At the moment I'm teaching English to Lao kids, and the English
    writing system is an absolute pain in the ass for teaching. The
    English writing system is such an embarrassment that we actually have
    "spelling bees", it's actually an /accomplishment/ to be able to spell
    stuff properly in English!

    When I'm teaching I might write a sentence like:

    I eat fish every day

    And then write:

    I ate fish yesterday

    but they haven't got a clue how to say it. The "vowel after the next
    consonant" thing really screws things up, such as:

    hope Versus hop
    hoping Versus hopping

    And then you have just plain inconsistency:

    steak Versus peak

    And you have the two "th" sounds, both voice and unvoiced, represented
    by the same symbol:

    thanks
    them

    And you have the ambiguity of whether S is pronounced as an S or a Z,
    and whether C is pronounced as K or S.

    It's almost embarrassing to have to tell them that English speakers
    pretty much memorise how to spell words. There about about two weeks
    ago a Lao person was trying to tell me in the Lao language that he
    sewed his own hand supports for weightlifting, but I didn't understand
    him so I got out a dictionary; I looked up the word he said and found
    that it meant "sew", and then he asked me how to spell it in English,
    and all I could say was "S - E - W, yes it makes no sense, just
    memorise it.".

    A lot of the time when I'm teaching and writing on the board I'll
    rewrite the word using the Lao writing system, which is 100% phonetic.
    Even if I were to rewrite it using the English writing system, e.g. by
    changing "through" to "thru", it would still be ambiguous a lot of the
    time.

    The only thing that keeps the current English writing system alive is
    eliteness. Now that I've experienced a language that has a brilliant
    writing system, I'd definitely be in favour of revamping written
    English. It would have three benefits:
    1) Our kids would have less trouble learning it
    2) Foreign adults would have less trouble learning English
    3) Native adults who have bad spelling skills would have less trouble

    Has anyone ever encountered a writing system that works on a
    "consonant + vowel pair" system? In the Lao writing system, you always
    have a "consonant + vowel pair" at the start of a syllable. If a
    syllable doesn't start with a consonant, then they have a symbol for a
    silent consonant. It's because of this that they can write without
    putting spaces between words, because they always know whether a
    particular consonant is the end of the previous syllable or the
    beginning of the next syllable (if it's the end of the previous
    syllable then it won't have a vowel after it). Given the "consonant +
    vowel pair" system, and given that the written language is 100%
    phonetic (you always know how to say a word when you read it), it's
    got to be one of the best writing systems in the world. You can master
    it in just a week or two if you're diligent enough.



    > If true it's rather annoying that someone should choose his own
    > opinions about how a language should be changed. As has been said
    > Brits and Americans are two groups of people separated by a common
    > tongue.




    That's a load of nonsense. The differences between British and
    American English take only a few seconds to resolve. Take the
    following:

    - James is after cutting his knee, have you got a plaster?
    - A plaster... what's a plaster?
    - To put on his knee to cover the wound
    - Oh you mean a band-aid
    - What, a band-aid?
    - Yeah we call it a band-aid

    Other examples are "sweater" instead of "jumper", "sneakers" instead
    of "runners", "sidewalk" instead of "path", but again these only take
    a few seconds to resolve. If you were to sit down for half an hour and
    read an article on differences between American and British English
    vocabulary, you'd be flying.

    European native English speakers are already aware of words such as
    "sweater" from watching US television; but they don't use these words
    themselves. It doesn't go the other way though, Americans tend to not
    have a clue about British words like "jumper". The situation is
    similar between Lao and Thailand; Lao people can speak and read Thai
    just fine from watching Thai television, but Thai people don't know
    Lao words.
     
    Tomás Ó hÉilidhe, Dec 26, 2008
    #7
  8. Tagore

    Bartc Guest

    Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:

    > At the moment I'm teaching English to Lao kids, and the English


    > It's almost embarrassing to have to tell them that English speakers
    > pretty much memorise how to spell words.


    > A lot of the time when I'm teaching and writing on the board I'll
    > rewrite the word using the Lao writing system, which is 100% phonetic.


    In Europe languages which use a phonetic written language tend to make up
    for it's simplicity by having a horrendous grammar.

    > Even if I were to rewrite it using the English writing system, e.g. by
    > changing "through" to "thru", it would still be ambiguous a lot of the
    > time.


    I think some shorthand systems for English use phonetics too. But...

    > The only thing that keeps the current English writing system alive is
    > eliteness.


    For everyday use a phonetic written English would have even more ambiguities
    than there already are.

    And because of the current wideranging ways of actually pronouncing English
    (think of US, Australian, and UK regions) who would decide what the official
    phonetics should be?

    > Now that I've experienced a language that has a brilliant
    > writing system, I'd definitely be in favour of revamping written
    > English. It would have three benefits:
    > 1) Our kids would have less trouble learning it
    > 2) Foreign adults would have less trouble learning English
    > 3) Native adults who have bad spelling skills would have less trouble


    It would be a lot less fun. I remember seeing a stern note from a shopkeeper
    to his pilfering staff: "... trouble will be dealt with at sauce..."

    But hang on: in your system, "source" and "sauce" would have the same
    spelling anyway.

    >
    > Has anyone ever encountered a writing system that works on a
    > "consonant + vowel pair" system?


    Japanese katakana? Over there I'm Barto apparently because a consonant
    /must/ be followed by a vowel.

    --
    Bart C
     
    Bartc, Dec 26, 2008
    #8
  9. Tagore

    Tony Quinn Guest

    In message <Nu35l.11462$>, Bartc
    <> writes
    >Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:
    >
    >> At the moment I'm teaching English to Lao kids, and the English

    >
    >> It's almost embarrassing to have to tell them that English speakers
    >> pretty much memorise how to spell words.

    >
    >> A lot of the time when I'm teaching and writing on the board I'll
    >> rewrite the word using the Lao writing system, which is 100% phonetic.
    >> Now that I've experienced a language that has a brilliant
    >> writing system, I'd definitely be in favour of revamping written
    >> English. It would have three benefits:
    >> 1) Our kids would have less trouble learning it
    >> 2) Foreign adults would have less trouble learning English
    >> 3) Native adults who have bad spelling skills would have less trouble


    This from a man who insists on spelling his name in a language which has
    been all but obsolete for a couple of centuries ... am I glad I didn't
    see his full diatribe and just the edited highlights in a response. I
    suspect that it's bugger all to with the grammar and/or spelling, and
    all to do with his apparent hatred of English and *THE* English.

    Can you take it elsewhere and return to C, please!
    --
    The fact that a believer is happier than a sceptic is no more to the
    point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.
    The happiness of credulity is a cheap and dangerous quality.
    -- George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), Preface to Androcles and the Lion
     
    Tony Quinn, Dec 26, 2008
    #9
  10. On Dec 26, 7:00 pm, Tony Quinn <> wrote:

    > This from a man who insists on spelling his name in a language which has
    > been all but obsolete for a couple of centuries ...



    By all means go correct the errors on this page:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaeltacht

    Or, if you'd prefer, in Irish:

    http://ga.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaeltacht

    I myself last spoke Irish about a month and half ago... in a pub in
    Southeast Asia of all places.
     
    Tomás Ó hÉilidhe, Dec 26, 2008
    #10
  11. On Dec 26, 6:46 pm, "Bartc" <> wrote:

    > For everyday use a phonetic written English would have even more ambiguities
    > than there already are.
    >
    > And because of the current wideranging ways of actually pronouncing English
    > (think of US, Australian, and UK regions) who would decide what the official
    > phonetics should be?




    Just last night I was sitting a table with an American, an Australian
    and a New Zealander (you get all sorts out here). The American and the
    Australian pronounced "car" with a vowel similar to that in "law",
    however myself and the New Zealander pronounced it with a vowel
    similar to that in "bad".

    The way of getting around this in a phonetic writing system is to have
    a unique symbol to represent the sound of "ar", and to have this
    symbol pronounced differently by different dialects. That's what the
    Irish language does; for instance we have "ao", which is pronounced to
    rhyme with "my" up North, and pronounced to rhyme with "may" down
    South. So for instance, you could have a page of written Irish written
    by a Southerner, and a Northerner will read it with a Northern accent.
    Neither dialect feels as though they've gotten the shaft.
     
    Tomás Ó hÉilidhe, Dec 26, 2008
    #11
  12. Tagore wrote:
    > According to my C text book
    > "parameters are passed to a called function by pushing them on the
    > stack from right to left."
    >
    > but in a C forum I found that order of passing of parameters are
    > undefined.
    >
    > Which of the following statement about order of parameter passing is
    > correct?
    > 1) statement given in my C text book.
    > 2) It is undefined.
    > 3) It is implementation defined.


    Your book is correct for some systems, but it is incorrect for others.

    The mechanism by which parameters are passed to functions is unspecified
    by the C standard. And, unless you're doing something really
    unportable, it shouldn't matter.

    <OT>
    Typically, your implementation will produce programs that conform with a
    particular "Application Binary Interface", which specifies this and many
    other details so that code compiled with different tools (perhaps in
    different languages) can be linked together and work properly. ABIs do
    vary significantly, so you'd have to look up the one for your particular
    implementation and see what it says. And, some implementations define
    several mechanisms and when to use each, e.g. passing via registers by
    default but using a stack for variadic functions, or passing
    left-to-right for OS function calls but right-to-left for user function
    calls.
    </OT>

    S
     
    Stephen Sprunk, Dec 27, 2008
    #12
  13. Tagore

    George Guest

    Re: [OT] English spelling

    On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 18:48:21 -0500, CBFalconer wrote:

    > James Harris wrote:
    >> [1 quoted line suppressed]

    > ... snip ...
    >> [26 quoted lines suppressed]

    >
    > When I was young we had a 1908 Funk & Wagnals Encyclopaedia
    > around. That was an American edition. It was full of 'tho',
    > 'thru', and similar spelling revisions. I think it finally got
    > lost about 4 years ago when I closed down our home for the past 40
    > years after my wifes death, and had to be vicious. The book
    > collection was seriously damaged.


    Of course you mean Funk and Wagnalls. I think it dates a person to have
    used it.

    As far as books go, I'm still taking your advice and burning them based on
    lack of relevance to C. Most of them are from my decedent uncle, who
    dropped dead in this house last year.

    Yesterday was cold--I think Siberian air is seeping over to Alaska and is
    making this huge low pressure system that covers the whole US--but National
    Geographics were pumping out calories in my woodburner.
    --
    George

    We know that dictators are quick to choose aggression, while free nations
    strive to resolve differences in peace.
    George W. Bush

    Picture of the Day http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/
     
    George, Dec 28, 2008
    #13
  14. Re: [OT] English spelling (was: Order of passing of parameters?)

    In article <> writes:
    ....
    > When I was young we had a 1908 Funk & Wagnals Encyclopaedia
    > around. That was an American edition. It was full of 'tho',
    > 'thru', and similar spelling revisions.


    Yes, those were spellings Webster favoured (note the 'ou', I learned British
    English at school). You might also have noticed 'nite'. Some of his reforms
    made it into the everyday spelling, some not.

    Nearly every language is (I think) in its spelling influenced by a single or
    only a few people. That is certainly true for Dutch, where the first
    dictionary produced was very influential.
    --
    dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
    home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
     
    Dik T. Winter, Dec 30, 2008
    #14
  15. In article <> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tom=E1s_=D3_h=C9ilidhe?= <> writes:
    ....
    > Has anyone ever encountered a writing system that works on a
    > "consonant + vowel pair" system?


    There are a lot, but they do not work well with languages that do not consist
    of "consonant + vowel pair"s syllables only. They ignore consonant clusters,
    something that is quite common in some languages (especially of Germanic
    origin). So they do not need only a consonant suppression sign, but also
    a vowel suppression sign. People accustomed to a language where between
    consonants alway at least one vowel is needed are in genereal not able to
    correctly pronounce the Dutch word "herfst" (autumn, four consonants at the
    end) or "angstschreeuw" (five consonants in the middle, 'ng' and 'ch' are
    single consonants).
    --
    dik t. winter, cwi, kruislaan 413, 1098 sj amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
    home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
     
    Dik T. Winter, Dec 30, 2008
    #15
  16. Tagore

    Richard Bos Guest

    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tom=E1s_=D3_h=C9ilidhe?= <> wrote:

    > At the moment I'm teaching English to Lao kids, and the English
    > writing system is an absolute pain in the ass for teaching. The
    > English writing system is such an embarrassment that we actually have
    > "spelling bees", it's actually an /accomplishment/ to be able to spell
    > stuff properly in English!


    Amazing that this "English is _soooo_ hard" myth keeps making all you
    Limeys and Yankees soooo proud.

    For your information, people in other countries, speaking other
    languages, have spelling contests as well. They may not always be as
    simplistic as the ones you use, but we do have them.

    Richard
     
    Richard Bos, Jan 5, 2009
    #16
  17. Tagore

    Guest

    Richard Bos <> wrote:
    >
    > Amazing that this "English is _soooo_ hard" myth keeps making all you
    > Limeys and Yankees soooo proud.


    I don't think we're particularly proud of it -- it's not significantly
    more difficult for native speakers than any other language. But I feel
    sorry for anyone who has to learn it as a non-native speaker since
    whatever language(s) they already know will likely lead them astray as
    often as provide correct guidance. That's the problem with adopting
    words and phrases from every language you've ever come in contact with
    with varying degrees of assimilation: whatever "rules" there are are
    nowhere near universal.
    --
    Larry Jones

    He just doesn't want to face up to the fact that I'll be
    the life of every party. -- Calvin
     
    , Jan 5, 2009
    #17
  18. Tagore

    CBFalconer Guest

    wrote:
    > Richard Bos <> wrote:
    >
    >> Amazing that this "English is _soooo_ hard" myth keeps making
    >> all you Limeys and Yankees soooo proud.

    >
    > I don't think we're particularly proud of it -- it's not
    > significantly more difficult for native speakers than any other
    > language. But I feel sorry for anyone who has to learn it as a
    > non-native speaker since whatever language(s) they already know
    > will likely lead them astray as often as provide correct guidance.
    > That's the problem with adopting words and phrases from every
    > language you've ever come in contact with with varying degrees of
    > assimilation: whatever "rules" there are are nowhere near
    > universal.


    Disagree. When I was a young sprout my parents insisted that I
    take Latin in school (Yes, it was still routinely available then).
    I dutifully did so for a year and a half. In the process the
    teacher had to tell us things about grammar, which cleared up all
    sorts of things in English (for me).

    After that year and a half I wanted maths, not Latin. I got
    something like marks of 8 and 16 (out of 100) for two tests, and my
    parents bowed to my wishes. But I have never regretted the
    exposure that I did get.

    --
    [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
    [page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
    Try the download section.
     
    CBFalconer, Jan 7, 2009
    #18
  19. OT: CBF's peeing in his cornflakes again (Was [as hard as this is to believe!]: Order of passing of parameters?)

    In article <>,
    CBFalconer <> wrote:
    ....
    >Disagree. When I was a young sprout my parents insisted that I
    >take Latin in school (Yes, it was still routinely available then).


    Heck! Back then, it was spoken throughout the empire.

    Anyway, as there is no mention of Latin in the C standards documents,
    you, of all people, should know that this is:

    Off topic. Not portable. Cant discuss it here. Blah, blah, blah.

    --
    Useful clc-related links:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspergers
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clique
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C_programming_language
     
    Kenny McCormack, Jan 16, 2009
    #19
  20. Re: OT: CBF's peeing in his cornflakes again (Was [as hard as this

    In article <gkrmtn$dsc$>,
    Tomás Ó hÉilidhe <****@off.com> wrote:
    >On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:02:00 +0000, Kenny McCormack wrote:
    >
    >> Off topic. Not portable. Cant discuss it here. Blah, blah, blah.

    >
    >
    >Kenny you missed the apostrophe in "can't". You just dropped 15 points on
    >the CLC importance scale.


    It's been that way since the beginning. I wrote it that way on purpose.

    P.S. You missed the comma after "Kenny".
     
    Kenny McCormack, Jan 17, 2009
    #20
    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. Soren Kuula
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    505
    Soren Kuula
    Feb 1, 2004
  2. John
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    7,823
    Henry Townsend
    Jun 8, 2006
  3. Ramon F Herrera
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    485
    Pascal J. Bourguignon
    Sep 13, 2009
  4. cspoh
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    252
    cspoh
    Jul 31, 2003
  5. Stephan Kämper
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    240
    Stephan Kämper
    Jan 18, 2004
Loading...

Share This Page