Please Help ----------Free Downloadable Ebooks for C & C++ Language needed

[jacob navia]

Richard Heathfield a écrit :

jacob navia said:




Does this amount to a claim that lcc-win32 is C99-conforming?

I claim that I accept // comments.



Please.... stop this polemic.

Let's come back to the tutorial. Interesting discussions start each
time we speak about it. Look at the argv[] discussion in comp.std.c

Interesting! The standard writers had a lapsus when speaking about
the "argv array", just like me...

jacob

 

[Keith Thompson]

CBFalconer a écrit : [...]

A further general criticism is his habit of using // comments
everywhere. These are not valid in C90. The tutorial is supposed
to be about C, not about lcc-win32.

I use the current C standard.

Which lcc-win32 does not fully support. In fact, you presumably use a
carefully selected subset of the current C standard, a subset that
includes // comments but does not include whatever features lcc-win32
does not yet support.

I note that C90 with a few minor restrictions (avoiding certain
identifiers, for example) could also be considered a carefully
selected subset of C99, and one that's much better defined.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

jacob navia said:

Richard Heathfield a écrit :

I claim that I accept // comments.

So presumably you mean you are not claiming lcc-win32 is C99-conforming -
because if it were, you'd grab the chance to say so. So in other words your
tutorial describing a language that lcc-win32 does not completely support.
There's nothing wrong with that - I've written about C without shipping a
compiler for it - but there *is* something wrong with failing to make it
clear to your readership that the C compiler you ship to them does not
conform with the language you are trying to teach them.

Please.... stop this polemic.

Well, until you realise it *isn't* polemic, but just common sense, I don't
suppose we'll proceed very far.

Let's come back to the tutorial.

That's what we're doing - discussing the tutorial.

--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: normal service will be restored as soon as possible. Please do not
adjust your email clients.

 

[tehn.yit.chin]

Take a look at
http://www.freetechbooks.com/

 

[Kenny McCormack]

You mean, try being wrong more often? Sorry, but that's not a price I'm
prepared to pay.

Ya know... It is interesting what kinds of mental images we form of the
posters here. My mental image of RH had been of an professor-type at
some middle-to-low rent UK University, an expert in C (that I'll grant),
but, as professorial types often are, completely out of touch with
reality. Now, don't get me wrong, being out of touch with reality is a
nice place to be, and, if you can afford it, it can be quite pleasant.
Two "occupations" which do allow this are 1) academia and 2) being idle
rich.

But, based on some of his posts in this thread (such as the above quoted
text), he is beginning to look more and more like a spoiled 17 year old
brat. Have I got it right?

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Back to the tutorial, I find its major lack is that he fails to
emphasize what is and is not standard. This is probably due to
lack of knowledge of the standard. He also fails to discriminate
between C90 and C99, as in references to <stdbool.h>. He also
fails to note the three forms of char, plain, signed, and unsigned.

Maybe he just doesn't give a sh*t about your beloved "standard".
I know that's a blasphemous position to take _in this newsgroup_ and I
wouldn't deign to try to defend that position _in the context of this silly
newsgroup_, but it *is* a legitimate position in the real world.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

I use the current C standard.

Does this amount to a claim that lcc-win32 is C99-conforming?[/QUOTE]

Only in your fevered brain.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

I already read it. You posted something. Jacob (probably accidentally)
misinterpreted it. You made sarcastic and gratuitous response. So did
he. In short, you both behaved like five year olds fighting over a
broken rattle. To make it worse, you seem to think you're invariably
in the right, and get on your high and pompous horse whenever anyone
suggest you may have been mistaken.

At your age you ought to be ashamed of yourself. I know you embarrass
me.

As I posted elsethread, the question at this point is just how old RH is.

Your guess of 5 would actually excuse his behavior. My guess is more
like 17 - at which age, in an earlier age, his behavior would be
inexcusable, but nowadays, brats like him are the norm.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Then I suggest you stop reading my articles. You misinterpret them so often
that they don't seem to do you any good, and your misguided replies to them
sometimes require lengthy debunking, so it might be less work for both of
us if you were to filter them out completely. But of course that's
completely up to you.

I think that when you find me & Mark McIntyre in agreement, you can rely
on the truth of the position.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Kenny McCormack said:

I think that when you find me & Mark McIntyre in agreement, you can rely
on the truth of the position.

I can always rely on the truth. Your agreeing or otherwise with Mark
McIntyre is of no relevance to the truth as far as I can see. I am,
however, inevitably reminded of a comment of Jonathan Swift's, which seems
particularly pertinent.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Kenny McCormack said:


I can always rely on the truth. Your agreeing or otherwise with Mark
McIntyre is of no relevance to the truth as far as I can see.

Then you need better (stronger) glasses.

Isn't this fun?

 

[Default User]

Kenny McCormack said:

[who cares what Kenny wrote]

I can always rely on the truth. Your agreeing or otherwise with Mark
McIntyre is of no relevance to the truth as far as I can see. I am,
however, inevitably reminded of a comment of Jonathan Swift's, which
seems particularly pertinent.

Was it, don't feed the damn trolls?




Brian

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Default User said:

Was it, don't feed the damn trolls?

No, not that one. Close, though.

 

[Keith Thompson]

Kenny McCormack said: [the usual]
I can always rely on the truth. Your agreeing or otherwise with Mark
McIntyre is of no relevance to the truth as far as I can see. I am,
however, inevitably reminded of a comment of Jonathan Swift's, which seems
particularly pertinent.

Richard, *please* stop feeding the troll.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Keith Thompson said:

Kenny McCormack said: [the usual]
I can always rely on the truth. Your agreeing or otherwise with Mark
McIntyre is of no relevance to the truth as far as I can see. I am,
however, inevitably reminded of a comment of Jonathan Swift's, which
seems particularly pertinent.

Richard, *please* stop feeding the troll.

Keith, *please* stop telling me what to do.

 

[CBFalconer]

Keith Thompson said:

Kenny McCormack said:

[the usual]

I can always rely on the truth. Your agreeing or otherwise with
Mark McIntyre is of no relevance to the truth as far as I can
see. I am, however, inevitably reminded of a comment of Jonathan
Swift's, which seems particularly pertinent.

Richard, *please* stop feeding the troll.

Keith, *please* stop telling me what to do.

The problem is that, as long as you feed it, it will be amused and
continue to appear. I think we can all agree that the prime
objective is to eliminate it.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

CBFalconer said:

The problem is that, as long as you feed it, it will be amused and
continue to appear.

I wonder if it's occurred to you to check my response rate to trolls. While
not zero, it's nevertheless very low. You are preaching to the choir.

I think we can all agree that the prime objective is to eliminate it.

No, the prime objective of this newsgroup is to discuss C.

 

[Default User]

Keith Thompson said:

Kenny McCormack said: [the usual]
I can always rely on the truth. Your agreeing or otherwise with

Mark >> McIntyre is of no relevance to the truth as far as I can see.
I am, >> however, inevitably reminded of a comment of Jonathan
Swift's, which >> seems particularly pertinent.

Richard, please stop feeding the troll.

Keith, please stop telling me what to do.

That's an odd attitude for someone who never hesitates to lecture
others (at length) about perceived contributions to the "noise" level
of the newsgroup.





Brian

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Default User said:

That's an odd attitude for someone who never hesitates to lecture
others (at length) about perceived contributions to the "noise" level
of the newsgroup.

That person isn't me. I have *occasionally* mentioned the noise level of the
newsgroup, and the last time I did so was after some *weeks* of hesitation.
I prefer to discuss C. Don't you?

 

[Keith Thompson]

Keith Thompson said:

Kenny McCormack said: [the usual]
I can always rely on the truth. Your agreeing or otherwise with Mark
McIntyre is of no relevance to the truth as far as I can see. I am,
however, inevitably reminded of a comment of Jonathan Swift's, which
seems particularly pertinent.

Richard, *please* stop feeding the troll.

Keith, *please* stop telling me what to do.

I am making a request.

Kenny McCormack, as far as I can tell, posts here for the sole
purpose of disrupting this newsgroup and insulting the regulars.
(I'm not speculating on his actual motivations, about which I frankly
don't care.) He seems to thrive on attention. The less attention
he gets, the better for the newsgroup (in my opinion, of course).

I appreciate the fact that you rarely respond to this particular troll.
I believe it would be better for the newsgroup if you *never* did so.

If you really believe that engaging KM in conversation is somehow
better than completely ignoring him, I'm at a loss to understand how
you've reached that conclusion, and I would appreciate a clarification.

People can change (as we've seen here recently), but KM shows no
signs of doing so. Until and unless he does, I will ignore him, and
I advise everyone else to do the same. If directing this advice to
you really won't do any good, I'll stop.