Pedants

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by jacob navia, Jun 21, 2008.

  1. jacob navia

    jacob navia Guest

    Dear pedantic user

    What is a pedant?

    According to dictionary.com you are:

    1. a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of learning.
    2. a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details.
    3. a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard to
    common sense.

    I am very glad that this flag, done for people like you
    works as expected.

    My compiler system is not for pedants, so you can stop using it
    and get a compiler that suits your pedantic needs. Many pedants
    here (this group has a lot of them) will point you to their
    favorite software.



    --
    jacob navia
    jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
    logiciels/informatique
    http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
     
    jacob navia, Jun 21, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. jacob navia

    jacob navia Guest

    jacob navia wrote:
    > Dear pedantic user
    >
    > What is a pedant?
    >
    > According to dictionary.com you are:
    >
    > 1. a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of learning.
    > 2. a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details.
    > 3. a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard to
    > common sense.
    >
    > I am very glad that this flag, done for people like you
    > works as expected.
    >
    > My compiler system is not for pedants, so you can stop using it
    > and get a compiler that suits your pedantic needs. Many pedants
    > here (this group has a lot of them) will point you to their
    > favorite software.
    >
    >
    >



    This message should have been sent to the
    "Is pedantic a bad flag"
    thread...

    But anyway, forget it, it is not worth the effort

    --
    jacob navia
    jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
    logiciels/informatique
    http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
     
    jacob navia, Jun 21, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. jacob navia

    Guest

    On Jun 21, 1:19 pm, jacob navia <> wrote:
    > jacob navia wrote:
    > > Dear pedantic user

    >
    > > What is a pedant?

    >
    > > According to dictionary.com you are:

    >
    > > 1. a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of learning.
    > > 2. a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details.
    > > 3. a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard to
    > > common sense.

    >
    > > I am very glad that this flag, done for people like you
    > > works as expected.

    >
    > > My compiler system is not for pedants, so you can stop using it
    > > and get a compiler that suits your pedantic needs. Many pedants
    > > here (this group has a lot of them) will point you to their
    > > favorite software.

    >
    > This message should have been sent to the
    > "Is pedantic a bad flag"
    > thread...
    >
    > But anyway, forget it, it is not worth the effort

    I think the person who made the thread is on purpose making threads
    about bugs with little importance in your compiler system.
    But it would be wiser to ignore the bait and just fix the bugs.
     
    , Jun 21, 2008
    #3
  4. jacob navia

    jacob navia Guest

    CBFalconer wrote:
    > jacob navia wrote:
    >> Dear pedantic user
    >>
    >> What is a pedant?
    >>
    >> According to dictionary.com you are:
    >>
    >> 1. a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of
    >> learning.
    >> 2. a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details.
    >> 3. a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard
    >> to common sense.
    >>
    >> I am very glad that this flag, done for people like you
    >> works as expected.
    >>
    >> My compiler system is not for pedants, so you can stop using it
    >> and get a compiler that suits your pedantic needs. Many pedants
    >> here (this group has a lot of them) will point you to their
    >> favorite software.

    >
    > Excellent. Very amusing.
    >
    > However, we need to point out that the pedantic beast is not the
    > probrammer, but the compiler. That poor compiler is stolidly
    > insisting that the code it compiles be written to match the demands
    > of the C standard. This has the side-effect of ensuring that the
    > code actually performs as desired. In most cases this matches the
    > conscious desires of the programmer.
    >


    Yes yes Mr PEDANT.

    Obviously it suffices to conform to ISO C and your
    program will "perform as desired". Of course.


    3. a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard
    to common sense.


    --
    jacob navia
    jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
    logiciels/informatique
    http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
     
    jacob navia, Jun 21, 2008
    #4
  5. jacob navia

    jacob navia Guest

    Richard Heathfield wrote:
    > jacob navia said:
    >
    >> Dear pedantic user
    >>
    >> What is a pedant?
    >>
    >> According to dictionary.com you are:
    >>
    >> 1. a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of learning.
    >> 2. a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details.
    >> 3. a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard to
    >> common sense.

    >
    > Note that dictionary.com is non-normative.
    >
    > In comp.lang.c, the word "pedant" tends to be used to describe someone who
    > cares about getting it right, by someone who doesn't.
    >
    > In that sense, you are using it correctly.
    >
    > <snip>
    >


    1. a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of learning.
    2. a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details.


    --
    jacob navia
    jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
    logiciels/informatique
    http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32
     
    jacob navia, Jun 21, 2008
    #5
  6. jacob navia

    Richard Guest

    jacob navia <> writes:

    > Richard Heathfield wrote:
    >> jacob navia said:
    >>
    >>> Dear pedantic user
    >>>
    >>> What is a pedant?
    >>>
    >>> According to dictionary.com you are:
    >>>
    >>> 1. a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of learning.
    >>> 2. a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details.
    >>> 3. a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard to
    >>> common sense.

    >>
    >> Note that dictionary.com is non-normative.
    >>
    >> In comp.lang.c, the word "pedant" tends to be used to describe
    >> someone who cares about getting it right, by someone who doesn't.
    >>
    >> In that sense, you are using it correctly.
    >>
    >> <snip>
    >>

    >
    > 1. a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of learning.
    > 2. a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details.


    Also note that Heathfield has not defined "right" here. For many "right"
    is something that works well on their target platform. "Right" can even
    include cross platform ISO goodness but may not be "perfect" either -
    but a timely and economic solution to the problem in hand.

    No.

    "Pedants" in this group are the anal retentives who are more interested
    in showing off their own standard knowledge than actually helping people
    get up to speed in good, (sometimes) portable C. This group is
    c.l.c. Not ISO C. Not C89. Just "c". And if others want to help others
    with "general" C issues then good luck to them.
     
    Richard, Jun 21, 2008
    #6
  7. jacob navia <> writes:

    > Dear pedantic user


    Dear Jacob

    > What is a pedant?


    What is the -pedantic flag? As far as I can see you don't document
    the use of it. As such, you can hardly have faced an easier bug to
    fix -- just report "bad flag" and ignore it. Of course, if you
    intended it to do something then you have a bigger problem.

    Rather than getting hot under the collar about it, I think the users
    of your compiler would be better served by a simple statement of
    intent: accepting the flag is either a simple bug (which you can fix
    in about a minute) or you do intend to offer some sort of more
    rigorous checking mode and you plan to get it working soon. Would it
    not have been simpler just to say which is the case?

    --
    Ben.
     
    Ben Bacarisse, Jun 21, 2008
    #7
  8. Ben Bacarisse wrote:
    > jacob navia <> writes:
    >
    >> Dear pedantic user

    >
    > Dear Jacob
    >
    >> What is a pedant?

    >
    > What is the -pedantic flag? As far as I can see you don't document
    > the use of it. As such, you can hardly have faced an easier bug to
    > fix -- just report "bad flag" and ignore it. Of course, if you
    > intended it to do something then you have a bigger problem.
    >
    > Rather than getting hot under the collar about it, I think the users
    > of your compiler would be better served by a simple statement of
    > intent: accepting the flag is either a simple bug (which you can fix
    > in about a minute) or you do intend to offer some sort of more
    > rigorous checking mode and you plan to get it working soon. Would it
    > not have been simpler just to say which is the case?


    Some simple rules when dealing with Jacob:

    1. Don't attack Jacob, he takes it as personal offense
    2. Don't criticize Jajob, he takes it as an attack, see 1.
    3. Don't criticise any software Jacob developed, he takes it as personal
    criticism, see 2.
    4. Don't report bugs in software Jacob developed, he takes it as criticism,
    see, 3.

    In any case he'll feel personnally offended by any of the above mentioned
    things. On top of that:

    5. Better don't reply to anything Jacob writes, if there is the slightest
    possibility that it might be interpreted in 2 ways, one of which may
    possible offending, he'll for sure pick that interpretation and go balistic.
    6. If you did reply to Jacob, don't fell offended, when he goes balistic and
    calls you a liar for no good reason, this is his normal behavoir, just
    ignore it, it's better for your health
    7. Never ever expect Jacob ot appologize for any offense he did to you, so
    far it never ever happened. Saves you from a disappointement, and is better
    for your health.

    This should really be added to the CLC FAQ.

    Sad, but apparently true...

    Bye, Jojo
     
    Joachim Schmitz, Jun 21, 2008
    #8
  9. Richard Heathfield wrote:
    > Some simple rules when dealing with critics:
    >
    > 1. If they're criticising your C code, listen to them, make sure
    > they're right, and - if they are - fix the code.

    Guess you meant "make sure _whether_ they are right", otherwise you may need
    to introduce bugs just to make them being right :cool:

    > 2. Don't forget to thank them for educating them.

    guess you meant: "educating _you_"

    > 3. If you can't stand your code being criticised, don't write any.

    guess you mean: "don't _publish_ any"

    > Jacob Navia is not immune to criticism just because he doesn't know
    > how to handle it properly. One day, he will learn that criticism is
    > good and useful.

    hope dies last, doesn't it?

    Bye, Jojo
     
    Joachim Schmitz, Jun 21, 2008
    #9
  10. jacob navia

    Richard Guest

    "Joachim Schmitz" <> writes:

    > Richard Heathfield wrote:
    >> Some simple rules when dealing with critics:
    >>
    >> 1. If they're criticising your C code, listen to them, make sure
    >> they're right, and - if they are - fix the code.

    > Guess you meant "make sure _whether_ they are right", otherwise you may need
    > to introduce bugs just to make them being right :cool:
    >
    >> 2. Don't forget to thank them for educating them.

    > guess you meant: "educating _you_"
    >
    >> 3. If you can't stand your code being criticised, don't write any.

    > guess you mean: "don't _publish_ any"
    >
    >> Jacob Navia is not immune to criticism just because he doesn't know
    >> how to handle it properly. One day, he will learn that criticism is
    >> good and useful.

    > hope dies last, doesn't it?
    >
    > Bye, Jojo


    Smashing job there of being a pedant over Heathfield's pompous pedantry,
    advice giving and general lording it.
     
    Richard, Jun 21, 2008
    #10
  11. In article <g3ik4r$q0s$>, jacob navia <> wrote:
    >Dear pedantic user


    >What is a pedant?


    >According to dictionary.com you are:


    >1. a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of learning.
    >2. a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details.
    >3. a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard to
    >common sense.


    >I am very glad that this flag, done for people like you
    >works as expected.


    "They like me. They really like me!"
    --
    "There's no term to the work of a scientist." -- Walter Reisch
     
    Walter Roberson, Jun 21, 2008
    #11
  12. jacob navia

    santosh Guest

    jacob navia wrote:
    > CBFalconer wrote:


    <snip>

    > Yes yes Mr PEDANT.

    [ ... ]

    Why not answer to the post that started all this jacob? If not to "new
    to c" (another anonymous "win-lcc troll" I suppose, though they could
    be genuine), then at least to the group at large, many of whose lurkers
    might well be using win-lcc. Are the "error" messages claimed by the OP
    correct? Is this a bug or feature of win-lcc? Does it accept
    the '-pedantic' flag? If not, why does it not print a "Unknown command
    option" diagnostic?
     
    santosh, Jun 21, 2008
    #12
  13. Richard Heathfield wrote:
    > Joachim Schmitz said:
    >
    >> Richard Heathfield wrote:
    >>> Some simple rules when dealing with critics:
    >>>
    >>> 1. If they're criticising your C code, listen to them, make sure
    >>> they're right, and - if they are - fix the code.

    >> Guess you meant "make sure _whether_ they are right", otherwise you
    >> may need to introduce bugs just to make them being right :cool:

    >
    > I presume you meant "be right", rather than "being right". :)

    Tribute to english not being my native language

    >>> 2. Don't forget to thank them for educating them.

    >> guess you meant: "educating _you_"

    >
    > I did, yes. Thanks.
    >
    >>
    >>> 3. If you can't stand your code being criticised, don't write any.

    >> guess you mean: "don't _publish_ any"

    >
    > No, I meant "don't write any". Because if you write some code, you'll
    > want to write some more (programming is very more-ish), and then
    > you'll write even more, and sooner or later you'll get to the point
    > where you think you're pretty good, and then some day you'll want to
    > show someone your stuff. And then they'll criticise it. And that
    > would be just awful, right?

    However: the criticism starts only when you publish

    >>> Jacob Navia is not immune to criticism just because he doesn't know
    >>> how to handle it properly. One day, he will learn that criticism is
    >>> good and useful.

    >> hope dies last, doesn't it?

    >
    > As Doctor Johnson said of a second marriage, "it is the triumph of
    > hope over experience".

    Great :cool:, guess I'll steal and use that sooner or later...

    Bye, Jojo
     
    Joachim Schmitz, Jun 21, 2008
    #13
  14. jacob navia

    Richard Guest

    "Malcolm McLean" <> writes:

    > "Joachim Schmitz" <> wrote in message n
    >> Richard Heathfield wrote:
    >>> Joachim Schmitz said:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> No, I meant "don't write any". Because if you write some code, you'll
    >>> want to write some more (programming is very more-ish), and then
    >>> you'll write even more, and sooner or later you'll get to the point
    >>> where you think you're pretty good, and then some day you'll want to
    >>> show someone your stuff. And then they'll criticise it. And that
    >>> would be just awful, right?

    >> However: the criticism starts only when you publish
    >>

    > However Jacob publishes only his binaries. I can't actually remember
    > seeing any C source by him. He's not one of those people who, like me,
    > are constantly providing little snippetts.
    >
    > Which leads us to a philosophical point. Can we tell the quality of
    > code purely from the binaries?


    Yes.

    Does it work and do the job it says it does?

    Simple really.
     
    Richard, Jun 21, 2008
    #14
  15. jacob navia

    santosh Guest

    Malcolm McLean wrote:

    > "Joachim Schmitz" <> wrote in message n
    >> Richard Heathfield wrote:
    >>> Joachim Schmitz said:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> No, I meant "don't write any". Because if you write some code,
    >>> you'll want to write some more (programming is very more-ish), and
    >>> then you'll write even more, and sooner or later you'll get to the
    >>> point where you think you're pretty good, and then some day you'll
    >>> want to show someone your stuff. And then they'll criticise it. And
    >>> that would be just awful, right?

    >> However: the criticism starts only when you publish
    >>

    > However Jacob publishes only his binaries. I can't actually remember
    > seeing any C source by him. He's not one of those people who, like me,
    > are constantly providing little snippetts.


    However I recall him posting various minor snippets of code
    occasionally, mainly from his standard library. In the past he used to
    post code more often than he does these days.

    > Which leads us to a philosophical point. Can we tell the quality of
    > code purely from the binaries?


    We must first define what we mean by "quality of code", and this is not
    a simple job, as the difference between the source of various versions
    of functionally identical programs is largely a subjective matter,
    IMHO.

    If the binary happens to do correctly all that it is specified to do
    under reasonable conditions, then we can say that the binary
    is "working", but we still can't say anything much about the source
    from examining the machine code. We can attempt a decompilation, but
    the resulting source is hardly likely to be better than travesty of the
    original source.

    Still examining the binary versions of program under a debugger and
    under various "stress" conditions, and taking comparative measurements
    can enable is to state many objective statements about the machine
    code. If the machine code for both the binaries was derived from the
    same compiler under the same switches, then differences can be safely
    attributed to the source from which it was compiled.
     
    santosh, Jun 21, 2008
    #15
  16. jacob navia

    Richard Guest

    santosh <> writes:

    > Malcolm McLean wrote:
    >
    >> "Joachim Schmitz" <> wrote in message n
    >>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
    >>>> Joachim Schmitz said:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> No, I meant "don't write any". Because if you write some code,
    >>>> you'll want to write some more (programming is very more-ish), and
    >>>> then you'll write even more, and sooner or later you'll get to the
    >>>> point where you think you're pretty good, and then some day you'll
    >>>> want to show someone your stuff. And then they'll criticise it. And
    >>>> that would be just awful, right?
    >>> However: the criticism starts only when you publish
    >>>

    >> However Jacob publishes only his binaries. I can't actually remember
    >> seeing any C source by him. He's not one of those people who, like me,
    >> are constantly providing little snippetts.

    >
    > However I recall him posting various minor snippets of code
    > occasionally, mainly from his standard library. In the past he used to
    > post code more often than he does these days.
    >
    >> Which leads us to a philosophical point. Can we tell the quality of
    >> code purely from the binaries?

    >
    > We must first define what we mean by "quality of code", and this is not
    > a simple job, as the difference between the source of various versions
    > of functionally identical programs is largely a subjective matter,
    > IMHO.
    >
    > If the binary happens to do correctly all that it is specified to do
    > under reasonable conditions, then we can say that the binary
    > is "working", but we still can't say anything much about the source
    > from examining the machine code. We can attempt a decompilation, but
    > the resulting source is hardly likely to be better than travesty of the
    > original source.


    Why do you insist on waffling on about the obvious Santosh? Clearly we
    can not look at the source if only the binary is there.

    >
    > Still examining the binary versions of program under a debugger and
    > under various "stress" conditions, and taking comparative measurements


    What comparative measurements? Comparative against what?

    > can enable is to state many objective statements about the machine
    > code. If the machine code for both the binaries was derived from the
    > same compiler under the same switches, then differences can be safely
    > attributed to the source from which it was compiled.


    So, in less words "if it works its good". The binary testing will tell
    you next to nothing about type safety assuming the numbers in the tests
    fall into compatible ranges for example.

    I would be interested to see what you think you are comparing against here.
     
    Richard, Jun 21, 2008
    #16
  17. jacob navia

    Serve Lau Guest

    "Richard" <> schreef in bericht
    news:g3j9k7$f69$...
    > santosh <> writes:
    >
    >> Malcolm McLean wrote:
    >>
    >>> "Joachim Schmitz" <> wrote in message n
    >>>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
    >>>>> Joachim Schmitz said:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No, I meant "don't write any". Because if you write some code,
    >>>>> you'll want to write some more (programming is very more-ish), and
    >>>>> then you'll write even more, and sooner or later you'll get to the
    >>>>> point where you think you're pretty good, and then some day you'll
    >>>>> want to show someone your stuff. And then they'll criticise it. And
    >>>>> that would be just awful, right?
    >>>> However: the criticism starts only when you publish
    >>>>
    >>> However Jacob publishes only his binaries. I can't actually remember
    >>> seeing any C source by him. He's not one of those people who, like me,
    >>> are constantly providing little snippetts.

    >>
    >> However I recall him posting various minor snippets of code
    >> occasionally, mainly from his standard library. In the past he used to
    >> post code more often than he does these days.
    >>
    >>> Which leads us to a philosophical point. Can we tell the quality of
    >>> code purely from the binaries?

    >>
    >> We must first define what we mean by "quality of code", and this is not
    >> a simple job, as the difference between the source of various versions
    >> of functionally identical programs is largely a subjective matter,
    >> IMHO.
    >>
    >> If the binary happens to do correctly all that it is specified to do
    >> under reasonable conditions, then we can say that the binary
    >> is "working", but we still can't say anything much about the source
    >> from examining the machine code. We can attempt a decompilation, but
    >> the resulting source is hardly likely to be better than travesty of the
    >> original source.

    >
    > Why do you insist on waffling on about the obvious Santosh? Clearly we
    > can not look at the source if only the binary is there.
    >
    >>
    >> Still examining the binary versions of program under a debugger and
    >> under various "stress" conditions, and taking comparative measurements

    >
    > What comparative measurements? Comparative against what?
    >
    >> can enable is to state many objective statements about the machine
    >> code. If the machine code for both the binaries was derived from the
    >> same compiler under the same switches, then differences can be safely
    >> attributed to the source from which it was compiled.

    >
    > So, in less words "if it works its good". The binary testing will tell
    > you next to nothing about type safety assuming the numbers in the tests
    > fall into compatible ranges for example.


    Take the case of the -pedantic flag not working with math.h. It doesnt say
    anything about the quality of the code, it only says something about the
    size of compiler system software and the lack of automated testing.
     
    Serve Lau, Jun 21, 2008
    #17
  18. jacob navia

    Bartc Guest

    "Tor Rustad" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Malcolm McLean skrev:
    >
    >> Which leads us to a philosophical point. Can we tell the quality of code
    >> purely from the binaries?


    > From a security point of view, using a closed source compiler which hasn't
    > gone through external code review, is a potential security risk -- as
    > there can be a trojan horse injected in the compiled programs.


    So you have some compiler source, which you then presumably have to compile
    with another binary, which must also be open source...

    So where do you start? It seems that at some point you need to use a trusted
    binary.

    --
    bartc
     
    Bartc, Jun 21, 2008
    #18
  19. jacob navia

    santosh Guest

    Bartc wrote:

    >
    > "Tor Rustad" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Malcolm McLean skrev:
    >>
    >>> Which leads us to a philosophical point. Can we tell the quality of
    >>> code purely from the binaries?

    >
    >> From a security point of view, using a closed source compiler which
    >> hasn't gone through external code review, is a potential security
    >> risk -- as there can be a trojan horse injected in the compiled
    >> programs.

    >
    > So you have some compiler source, which you then presumably have to
    > compile with another binary, which must also be open source...
    >
    > So where do you start? It seems that at some point you need to use a
    > trusted binary.


    No need. The BIOS could be open source and the hardware specs could also
    be open source. This way nothing inside the computer is beyond
    understanding, but this is not commonly the case. An average PC
    contains tons of closed source firmware, which *could* do subversive
    things, even if the OS and applications were to be open source.

    Also even if a program is open source, to be absolutely sure, you need
    to check the complete source for the program and compile it yourself.
    Otherwise there is no guarantee that a binary of an "open source"
    program that you download and use does not contain components in
    additions to it's published source base.
     
    santosh, Jun 21, 2008
    #19
  20. jacob navia

    Tony Quinn Guest

    In message <b9a7k.13364$>, Bartc
    <> writes
    >
    >"Tor Rustad" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> Malcolm McLean skrev:
    >>
    >>> Which leads us to a philosophical point. Can we tell the quality of code
    >>> purely from the binaries?

    >
    >> From a security point of view, using a closed source compiler which hasn't
    >> gone through external code review, is a potential security risk -- as
    >> there can be a trojan horse injected in the compiled programs.

    >
    >So you have some compiler source, which you then presumably have to compile
    >with another binary, which must also be open source...
    >
    >So where do you start? It seems that at some point you need to use a trusted
    >binary.


    Have you read this?

    http://www.ece.cmu.edu/~ganger/712.fall02/papers/p761-thompson.pdf
    --
    If one person has delusions, we call them psychotic. If, however, 1.5 billion
    people have delusions we must apparently call them a religious group, and
    respect their delusionary state.
     
    Tony Quinn, Jun 21, 2008
    #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. jacob navia

    bunch of pedants

    jacob navia, Mar 16, 2008, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    65
    Views:
    1,454
    David Thompson
    Mar 31, 2008
  2. rudolf

    Re: Pedants, please help on integer types

    rudolf, Aug 5, 2012, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    366
    rudolf
    Aug 5, 2012
  3. Keith Thompson

    Re: Pedants, please help on integer types

    Keith Thompson, Aug 5, 2012, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    444
    Keith Thompson
    Aug 5, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page