pointer-to-pointer (invalid lvalue in unary `&)

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Lucas Machado, Apr 3, 2004.

  1. i'm doing some Linux Kernel hacking for a course i'm currently taking.
    there is a pointer to a struct (struct example_struct *ex_ptr) in a .c
    that i want to access in a system call. i defined a pointer to a
    pointer in the .c:

    extern struct example_struct **pointer;

    and somewhere in the code i tried:

    pointer = &ex_ptr;

    and i get this error when trying to compile the kernel:

    invalid lvalue in unary `&'

    and it points to the line: pointer = &ex_ptr;....any idea why and what
    i should do to fix it?
     
    Lucas Machado, Apr 3, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Lucas Machado

    Leor Zolman Guest

    On 3 Apr 2004 09:49:41 -0800, (Lucas Machado)
    wrote:

    >i'm doing some Linux Kernel hacking for a course i'm currently taking.
    >there is a pointer to a struct (struct example_struct *ex_ptr) in a .c
    >that i want to access in a system call. i defined a pointer to a
    >pointer in the .c:
    >
    >extern struct example_struct **pointer;
    >
    >and somewhere in the code i tried:
    >
    >pointer = &ex_ptr;
    >
    >and i get this error when trying to compile the kernel:
    >
    >invalid lvalue in unary `&'
    >
    >and it points to the line: pointer = &ex_ptr;....any idea why and what
    >i should do to fix it?


    From what you've posted, all looks fine. Can you show /exactly/ what the
    definition of ex_ptr looks like? Whatever ex_ptr is, it doesn't seem to
    have an address associated with it. If it were just the wrong type for
    "pointer", I'd have expected the message to spell that out. So my guess is
    that "ex_ptr" is actually something like a constant, as weird as that
    sounds...
    -leor

    --
    Leor Zolman --- BD Software --- www.bdsoft.com
    On-Site Training in C/C++, Java, Perl and Unix
    C++ users: Download BD Software's free STL Error Message Decryptor at:
    www.bdsoft.com/tools/stlfilt.html
     
    Leor Zolman, Apr 3, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Lucas Machado wrote:
    > i'm doing some Linux Kernel hacking for a course i'm currently taking.
    > there is a pointer to a struct (struct example_struct *ex_ptr) in a .c
    > that i want to access in a system call. i defined a pointer to a
    > pointer in the .c:
    >
    > extern struct example_struct **pointer;
    >
    > and somewhere in the code i tried:
    >
    > pointer = &ex_ptr;
    >
    > and i get this error when trying to compile the kernel:
    >
    > invalid lvalue in unary `&'
    >
    > and it points to the line: pointer = &ex_ptr;....any idea why and what
    > i should do to fix it?



    You have almost certainly misdiagnosed the problem. Look to the lines
    before the one for which the error is reported. Simple things like
    missing a ';' on the line before may be such a culprit. Notice the use
    of your assignment below, which is fine. (If you had an incorrect use
    of 'extern', that would probably lead to a linking error instead).

    #include <stdio.h>

    struct example_struct
    {
    int f;
    } basestruct = { 0};
    struct example_struct *ex_ptr = &basestruct;

    int main(void)
    {
    struct example_struct **pointer;
    pointer = &ex_ptr;
    (*pointer)->f = 3;
    printf("basestruct.f = %d\n", basestruct.f);
    printf("ex_ptr->f = %d\n", ex_ptr->f);
    printf("(*pointer)->f = %d\n", (*pointer)->f);
    return 0;
    }


    basestruct.f = 3
    ex_ptr->f = 3
    (*pointer)->f = 3
     
    Martin Ambuhl, Apr 3, 2004
    #3
  4. "Leor Zolman" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 3 Apr 2004 09:49:41 -0800, (Lucas Machado)
    > wrote:
    >
    > >i'm doing some Linux Kernel hacking for a course i'm currently taking.
    > >there is a pointer to a struct (struct example_struct *ex_ptr) in a .c
    > >that i want to access in a system call. i defined a pointer to a
    > >pointer in the .c:
    > >
    > >extern struct example_struct **pointer;
    > >
    > >and somewhere in the code i tried:
    > >
    > >pointer = &ex_ptr;
    > >
    > >and i get this error when trying to compile the kernel:
    > >
    > >invalid lvalue in unary `&'
    > >
    > >and it points to the line: pointer = &ex_ptr;....any idea why and what
    > >i should do to fix it?

    >
    > From what you've posted, all looks fine. Can you show /exactly/ what the
    > definition of ex_ptr looks like? Whatever ex_ptr is, it doesn't seem to
    > have an address associated with it. If it were just the wrong type for
    > "pointer", I'd have expected the message to spell that out. So my guess is
    > that "ex_ptr" is actually something like a constant, as weird as that
    > sounds...
    > -leor
    >
    > --
    > Leor Zolman --- BD Software --- www.bdsoft.com
    > On-Site Training in C/C++, Java, Perl and Unix
    > C++ users: Download BD Software's free STL Error Message Decryptor at:
    > www.bdsoft.com/tools/stlfilt.html


    Ditto! How is ex_ptr defined?

    Should be something like:
    struct example_struct ex_st;
    struct example_struct *ex_ptr;
    struct example_struct **pointer;

    If you simply want the problem to go away to see if it is a compiler error,
    try casting it. That would hide any errors that might occur due to the
    compiler only... changing your debugging process from finding a syntax error
    to figuring out why your computer is crashing :)

    pointer = (struct example_struct **pointer)&ex_ptr;
     
    Chris Fogelklou, Apr 4, 2004
    #4
  5. Chris Fogelklou wrote:

    <snip>

    > If you simply want the problem to go away to see if it is a compiler
    > error,
    > try casting it.


    That doesn't seem very fruitful advice. He'd be better off trying to
    understand the type system than trying to learn how to circumvent it.

    > That would hide any errors that might occur due to the
    > compiler only... changing your debugging process from finding a syntax
    > error to figuring out why your computer is crashing :)


    Finding the syntax error is much easier.

    > pointer = (struct example_struct **pointer)&ex_ptr;


    That cast is badly-formed, and requires a diagnostic.

    --
    Richard Heathfield :
    "Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
    C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
    K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
     
    Richard Heathfield, Apr 4, 2004
    #5
  6. > That doesn't seem very fruitful advice. He'd be better off trying to
    > understand the type system than trying to learn how to circumvent it.
    >

    Yep.

    >>changing your debugging process from finding a syntax
    > > error to figuring out why your computer is crashing :)

    >
    > Finding the syntax error is much easier


    Hence the smiley and the statement that he would have to figure out why the
    computer is crashing (sarcasm... oops... my bad :)

    > > pointer = (struct example_struct **pointer)&ex_ptr;

    >
    > That cast is badly-formed, and requires a diagnostic.


    Hmm... It compiles on my system... but from the other posts/responses I've
    been participating in, I think my system might be broken. Could you please
    elaborate?

    typedef struct ui_tag {
    uint16 i;
    uint16 j;
    uint16 k;
    uint16 l;
    } ui_t, *pui_t;

    void main(void)
    {
    struct ui_tag * ptr_ui;
    struct ui_tag ** pptr_ui;
    struct ui_tag ui = {0,0,0,0};

    ptr_ui = &ui;
    pptr_ui = (struct ui_tag **)&ptr_ui;
    while(1);

    }
     
    Chris Fogelklou, Apr 4, 2004
    #6
  7. Chris Fogelklou wrote:

    >> That doesn't seem very fruitful advice. He'd be better off trying to
    >> understand the type system than trying to learn how to circumvent it.
    >>

    > Yep.
    >
    >>>changing your debugging process from finding a syntax
    >> > error to figuring out why your computer is crashing :)

    >>
    >> Finding the syntax error is much easier

    >
    > Hence the smiley and the statement that he would have to figure out why
    > the computer is crashing (sarcasm... oops... my bad :)
    >
    >> > pointer = (struct example_struct **pointer)&ex_ptr;

    >>
    >> That cast is badly-formed, and requires a diagnostic.

    >
    > Hmm... It compiles on my system...


    Really? I'm surprised.

    > but from the other posts/responses I've
    > been participating in, I think my system might be broken. Could you
    > please elaborate?
    >
    > typedef struct ui_tag {
    > uint16 i;
    > uint16 j;
    > uint16 k;
    > uint16 l;
    > } ui_t, *pui_t;
    >
    > void main(void)


    int main(void)

    > {
    > struct ui_tag * ptr_ui;
    > struct ui_tag ** pptr_ui;
    > struct ui_tag ui = {0,0,0,0};
    >
    > ptr_ui = &ui;
    > pptr_ui = (struct ui_tag **)&ptr_ui;


    This isn't the same cast.

    The one I said was badly-formed was:

    >> > pointer = (struct example_struct **pointer)&ex_ptr;


    struct example_struct ** is a type, so (struct example_struct **) is a
    well-formed cast, but (struct example_struct **pointer) is not.

    --
    Richard Heathfield :
    "Usenet is a strange place." - Dennis M Ritchie, 29 July 1999.
    C FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
    K&R answers, C books, etc: http://users.powernet.co.uk/eton
     
    Richard Heathfield, Apr 4, 2004
    #7
  8. Chris Fogelklou wrote:

    [Chris Fogelklou wrote, although he suppressed attribution]
    >>>pointer = (struct example_struct **pointer)&ex_ptr;


    [Richard Heathfield wrote, although Chris Fogelklou suppressed attribution]
    >>That cast is badly-formed, and requires a diagnostic.



    > Hmm... It compiles on my system... but from the other posts/responses I've
    > been participating in, I think my system might be broken.


    Either your system or you coding is broken, if not both. After, you
    write code like:

    > void main(void)


    and your compiler seems not to mind. Turn you damn diagnostics back on.
    And learn how to quote properly.
     
    Martin Ambuhl, Apr 4, 2004
    #8
  9. "Martin Ambuhl" <> wrote in message
    news:c4ptsb$2kchtg$-berlin.de...
    > Chris Fogelklou wrote:
    >
    > [Chris Fogelklou wrote, although he suppressed attribution]
    > >>>pointer = (struct example_struct **pointer)&ex_ptr;

    >
    > [Richard Heathfield wrote, although Chris Fogelklou suppressed

    attribution]
    > >>That cast is badly-formed, and requires a diagnostic.

    >
    >
    > > Hmm... It compiles on my system... but from the other posts/responses

    I've
    > > been participating in, I think my system might be broken.

    >
    > Either your system or you coding is broken, if not both. After, you
    > write code like:
    >
    > > void main(void)

    >
    > and your compiler seems not to mind. Turn you damn diagnostics back on.
    > And learn how to quote properly.


    I have found that this is the wrong group for me to post in.

    Richard, now I see the problem. Of course that was a bad cast. I guess I
    left that error out when I wrote the code.

    Martin, most of my C programming is for an embedded system... if the main
    function were ever to return (return value or not), I would be running out
    of uninitialized FLASH or RAM... probably a more serious problem, no? I can
    see your point, however, if running inside an OS, where the OS checks the
    return value.

    In any case, I think I will drop completely out of this NG. I am obviously
    not familiar enough with the hard and fast ANSI rules...

    It's been real.

    Chris
     
    Chris Fogelklou, Apr 5, 2004
    #9
  10. Lucas Machado

    CBFalconer Guest

    Chris Fogelklou wrote:
    >

    .... snip ...
    >
    > I have found that this is the wrong group for me to post in.
    >
    > Richard, now I see the problem. Of course that was a bad cast.
    > I guess I left that error out when I wrote the code.
    >
    > Martin, most of my C programming is for an embedded system...
    > if the main function were ever to return (return value or not),
    > I would be running out of uninitialized FLASH or RAM... probably
    > a more serious problem, no? I can see your point, however, if
    > running inside an OS, where the OS checks the return value.
    >
    > In any case, I think I will drop completely out of this NG. I am
    > obviously not familiar enough with the hard and fast ANSI rules...


    On the contrary, lurking and/or participating will make you a
    better embedded programmer, because you will write more portable
    code that doesn't require revision for every new situation.
    However, do grow a set of scabs.

    --
    A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
    Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
    A: Top-posting.
    Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
     
    CBFalconer, Apr 5, 2004
    #10
  11. In 'comp.lang.c', CBFalconer <> wrote:

    >> In any case, I think I will drop completely out of this NG. I am
    >> obviously not familiar enough with the hard and fast ANSI rules...

    >
    > On the contrary, lurking and/or participating will make you a
    > better embedded programmer, because you will write more portable
    > code that doesn't require revision for every new situation.


    Agreed. I'm also a programmer for embedded systems, and I have learned a lot
    of things by reading (and contributing to) this NG.

    --
    -ed- [remove YOURBRA before answering me]
    The C-language FAQ: http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
    C-reference: http://www.dinkumware.com/manuals/reader.aspx?lib=cpp
    FAQ de f.c.l.c : http://www.isty-info.uvsq.fr/~rumeau/fclc/
     
    Emmanuel Delahaye, Apr 10, 2004
    #11
  12. Lucas Machado

    Joe Wright Guest

    Chris Fogelklou wrote:
    [ snip ]
    >
    > I have found that this is the wrong group for me to post in.
    >
    > Richard, now I see the problem. Of course that was a bad cast. I guess I
    > left that error out when I wrote the code.
    >
    > Martin, most of my C programming is for an embedded system... if the main
    > function were ever to return (return value or not), I would be running out
    > of uninitialized FLASH or RAM... probably a more serious problem, no? I can
    > see your point, however, if running inside an OS, where the OS checks the
    > return value.
    >
    > In any case, I think I will drop completely out of this NG. I am obviously
    > not familiar enough with the hard and fast ANSI rules...
    >
    > It's been real.
    >
    > Chris
    >

    You give up too easily. The experts live here. If you only lurk you can
    learn things about C that you can't read in your book. If you post
    problematic code here you will get a professional code review from
    several experts at zero cost. If you feel that pointing out errors in
    your code is personally insulting, you need a thicker skin. Hang in
    there (here).
    --
    Joe Wright mailto:
    "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
    --- Albert Einstein ---
     
    Joe Wright, Apr 10, 2004
    #12
  13. "Joe Wright" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Chris Fogelklou wrote:
    > [ snip ]
    > >
    > > I have found that this is the wrong group for me to post in.
    > >
    > > Richard, now I see the problem. Of course that was a bad cast. I guess

    I
    > > left that error out when I wrote the code.
    > >
    > > Martin, most of my C programming is for an embedded system... if the

    main
    > > function were ever to return (return value or not), I would be running

    out
    > > of uninitialized FLASH or RAM... probably a more serious problem, no? I

    can
    > > see your point, however, if running inside an OS, where the OS checks

    the
    > > return value.
    > >
    > > In any case, I think I will drop completely out of this NG. I am

    obviously
    > > not familiar enough with the hard and fast ANSI rules...
    > >
    > > It's been real.
    > >
    > > Chris
    > >

    > You give up too easily. The experts live here. If you only lurk you can
    > learn things about C that you can't read in your book. If you post
    > problematic code here you will get a professional code review from
    > several experts at zero cost. If you feel that pointing out errors in
    > your code is personally insulting, you need a thicker skin. Hang in
    > there (here).
    > --
    > Joe Wright mailto:
    > "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
    > --- Albert Einstein ---


    K, I'm back...

    Actually, I have been lurking, but reluctant to post because I got flamed so
    badly the first time.

    I have no problem with people pointing out errors in my code. The problem
    was that I was simply trying to suggest some help to somebody but wasn't
    exactly precise on the wording I chose while responding to people responding
    to me and I got pretty eaten for it.

    In any case, I have a new topic of conversation... Now I just found out
    that our resident compiler expert thinks that casts are needed between void
    * and other pointer types (the thing that I thought and got eaten for,
    originally.) I don't have the original posts responding to me,
    unfortunately, but I need to point out the err in her ways. Can somebody
    please respond with where in the ANSI standard it is explicitly, blatantly
    stated that this is not the case?

    Thanks,

    Chris
     
    Chris Fogelklou, Apr 15, 2004
    #13
  14. Never mind... I reposted the question... please reply to that one! Thanks!


    "Chris Fogelklou" <> wrote in message
    news:a3xfc.89756$...
    > "Joe Wright" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Chris Fogelklou wrote:
    > > [ snip ]
    > > >
    > > > I have found that this is the wrong group for me to post in.
    > > >
    > > > Richard, now I see the problem. Of course that was a bad cast. I

    guess
    > I
    > > > left that error out when I wrote the code.
    > > >
    > > > Martin, most of my C programming is for an embedded system... if the

    > main
    > > > function were ever to return (return value or not), I would be running

    > out
    > > > of uninitialized FLASH or RAM... probably a more serious problem, no?

    I
    > can
    > > > see your point, however, if running inside an OS, where the OS checks

    > the
    > > > return value.
    > > >
    > > > In any case, I think I will drop completely out of this NG. I am

    > obviously
    > > > not familiar enough with the hard and fast ANSI rules...
    > > >
    > > > It's been real.
    > > >
    > > > Chris
    > > >

    > > You give up too easily. The experts live here. If you only lurk you can
    > > learn things about C that you can't read in your book. If you post
    > > problematic code here you will get a professional code review from
    > > several experts at zero cost. If you feel that pointing out errors in
    > > your code is personally insulting, you need a thicker skin. Hang in
    > > there (here).
    > > --
    > > Joe Wright mailto:
    > > "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
    > > --- Albert Einstein ---

    >
    > K, I'm back...
    >
    > Actually, I have been lurking, but reluctant to post because I got flamed

    so
    > badly the first time.
    >
    > I have no problem with people pointing out errors in my code. The problem
    > was that I was simply trying to suggest some help to somebody but wasn't
    > exactly precise on the wording I chose while responding to people

    responding
    > to me and I got pretty eaten for it.
    >
    > In any case, I have a new topic of conversation... Now I just found out
    > that our resident compiler expert thinks that casts are needed between

    void
    > * and other pointer types (the thing that I thought and got eaten for,
    > originally.) I don't have the original posts responding to me,
    > unfortunately, but I need to point out the err in her ways. Can somebody
    > please respond with where in the ANSI standard it is explicitly, blatantly
    > stated that this is not the case?
    >
    > Thanks,
    >
    > Chris
    >
     
    Chris Fogelklou, Apr 15, 2004
    #14
  15. Lucas Machado

    Dan Pop Guest

    In <a3xfc.89756$> "Chris Fogelklou" <> writes:

    >In any case, I have a new topic of conversation... Now I just found out
    >that our resident compiler expert thinks that casts are needed between void
    >* and other pointer types (the thing that I thought and got eaten for,
    >originally.) I don't have the original posts responding to me,
    >unfortunately, but I need to point out the err in her ways. Can somebody
    >please respond with where in the ANSI standard it is explicitly, blatantly
    >stated that this is not the case?


    If she's really a compiler expert, she should be able to compile the
    following code with the compiler in standard C mode:

    #include <stdlib.h>

    int main()
    {
    int *p = malloc(sizeof *p);
    void *q = p;
    return q != p;
    }

    If the C compiler silently accepts it, then the code doesn't require any
    diagnostic. But she might still claim that this is a case of undefined
    behaviour (if she's clueful enough, which is probably not the case, if she
    insists that casts are needed). So, here are the chapter and verses
    covering my program above:

    6.5.9 Equality operators
    ....
    5 Otherwise, at least one operand is a pointer. If one operand is
    a pointer and the other is a null pointer constant, the null
    pointer constant is converted to the type of the pointer. If
    one operand is a pointer to an object or incomplete type and the
    other is a pointer to a qualified or unqualified version of void,
    the former is converted to the type of the latter.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    ....

    6.5.16.1 Simple assignment

    Constraints

    1 One of the following shall hold:
    ....
    - one operand is a pointer to an object or incomplete type and
    the other is a pointer to a qualified or unqualified version
    of void, and the type pointed to by the left has all the
    qualifiers of the type pointed to by the right;

    Dan
    --
    Dan Pop
    DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
    Email:
     
    Dan Pop, Apr 15, 2004
    #15
  16. "Chris Fogelklou" <> wrote:
    <snip>
    >K, I'm back...

    <snip>
    >In any case, I have a new topic of conversation... Now I just found out
    >that our resident compiler expert thinks that casts are needed between void
    >* and other pointer types (the thing that I thought and got eaten for,
    >originally.)


    I have no idea who our resident compiler expert might be, but casts
    between void* and pointers to object types in either direction are
    rarely needed.

    One notable exception are variadic functions expecting a pointer to
    void, since in this case the compiler cannot reliably tell beforehand
    which type of argument will be requested when the function is called:

    int i;
    printf("%p", &i); /* Undefined behaviour! */
    printf("%p", (void *)&i); /* Correct. */

    Another (more common) situation is when you want to access a member
    of an aggregate or an array element through a void pointer:

    struct S { int i; } s;
    void *p = &s;
    p->i = 42; /* Plain wrong! */
    ((struct S *)p)->i = 42; /* Correct. */

    int a[9];
    void *q = a;
    q[6] = 42; /* Plain wrong! */
    ((int *)q)[6] = 42; /* Correct. */

    >I don't have the original posts responding to me,
    >unfortunately, but I need to point out the err in her ways. Can somebody
    >please respond with where in the ANSI standard it is explicitly, blatantly
    >stated that this is not the case?


    Uh, sorry, that where in the standard is stated exactly *what*?

    Regards
    --
    Irrwahn Grausewitz ()
    welcome to clc: http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt
    clc faq-list : http://www.faqs.org/faqs/C-faq/faq/
    clc OT guide : http://benpfaff.org/writings/clc/off-topic.html
     
    Irrwahn Grausewitz, Apr 15, 2004
    #16
  17. "Irrwahn Grausewitz" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Chris Fogelklou" <> wrote:
    > <snip>
    > >K, I'm back...

    > <snip>
    > >In any case, I have a new topic of conversation... Now I just found out
    > >that our resident compiler expert thinks that casts are needed between

    void
    > >* and other pointer types (the thing that I thought and got eaten for,
    > >originally.)

    >
    > I have no idea who our resident compiler expert might be, but casts
    > between void* and pointers to object types in either direction are
    > rarely needed.
    >
    > One notable exception are variadic functions expecting a pointer to
    > void, since in this case the compiler cannot reliably tell beforehand
    > which type of argument will be requested when the function is called:
    >
    > int i;
    > printf("%p", &i); /* Undefined behaviour! */
    > printf("%p", (void *)&i); /* Correct. */
    >
    > Another (more common) situation is when you want to access a member
    > of an aggregate or an array element through a void pointer:
    >
    > struct S { int i; } s;
    > void *p = &s;
    > p->i = 42; /* Plain wrong! */
    > ((struct S *)p)->i = 42; /* Correct. */
    >
    > int a[9];
    > void *q = a;
    > q[6] = 42; /* Plain wrong! */
    > ((int *)q)[6] = 42; /* Correct. */
    >
    > >I don't have the original posts responding to me,
    > >unfortunately, but I need to point out the err in her ways. Can somebody
    > >please respond with where in the ANSI standard it is explicitly,

    blatantly
    > >stated that this is not the case?

    >
    > Uh, sorry, that where in the standard is stated exactly *what*?


    I love the way people in this NG reply so agressively... OK... let's put
    two sentences together... can we?

    Chris Fogelklou wrote:
    "Now I just found out
    that our resident compiler expert thinks that casts are needed between void
    * and other pointer types"

    Chris Fogelklou wrote:
    "I don't have the original posts responding to me,
    unfortunately, but I need to point out the err in her ways. Can somebody
    please respond with where in the ANSI standard it is explicitly, blatantly
    stated that this is not the case?"

    Therefore, *what*== "casts are needed between void * and other pointer
    types"

    The thread continues further below... (see the new thread by me)
     
    Chris Fogelklou, Apr 15, 2004
    #17
  18. "Chris Fogelklou" <> wrote:
    >"Irrwahn Grausewitz" <> wrote in message

    <snip>
    >> Uh, sorry, that where in the standard is stated exactly *what*?

    >
    >I love the way people in this NG reply so agressively...


    Huh? Which part of "Uh, sorry, ... what?" made you think I was
    showing signs of aggressiveness? I just had to ask, because I
    failed to make sense of this part of your post, since to me it
    seemed to refer to material posted earlier you claimed not even
    you have handy.

    And I'm not going to decorate my posts with tiny hearts and stars
    and the like... ;-) Actually, I'm IMHO already overdoing it with
    the smilies. :)

    >The thread continues further below... (see the new thread by me)


    Yup, found it.

    Regards
    --
    Irrwahn Grausewitz ()
    welcome to clc: http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt
    clc faq-list : http://www.faqs.org/faqs/C-faq/faq/
    clc OT guide : http://benpfaff.org/writings/clc/off-topic.html
     
    Irrwahn Grausewitz, Apr 15, 2004
    #18
  19. "Irrwahn Grausewitz" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > "Chris Fogelklou" <> wrote:
    > >"Irrwahn Grausewitz" <> wrote in message

    > <snip>
    > >> Uh, sorry, that where in the standard is stated exactly *what*?

    > >
    > >I love the way people in this NG reply so agressively...

    >
    > Huh? Which part of "Uh, sorry, ... what?" made you think I was
    > showing signs of aggressiveness? I just had to ask, because I
    > failed to make sense of this part of your post, since to me it
    > seemed to refer to material posted earlier you claimed not even
    > you have handy.


    Sorry... my bad. Thanks for the smilies! ;-)

    Won't happen again... still getting my feet wet.
     
    Chris Fogelklou, Apr 15, 2004
    #19
  20. "Chris Fogelklou" <> wrote:
    >
    >"Irrwahn Grausewitz" <> wrote in message
    >> "Chris Fogelklou" <> wrote:
    >> >"Irrwahn Grausewitz" <> wrote in message

    >> <snip>
    >> >> Uh, sorry, that where in the standard is stated exactly *what*?
    >> >I love the way people in this NG reply so agressively...

    >> Huh? [...]

    >Sorry... my bad. Thanks for the smilies! ;-)


    No need to apologize, I just thought I point it out. And yes,
    posting in c.l.c can turn out to be a rough ride.

    >Won't happen again... still getting my feet wet.


    You're lucky if it's only your feet, and if it's only getting wet.
    Some people don't post without wearing their fire-proof suits... ;-)

    Regards
    --
    Irrwahn Grausewitz ()
    welcome to clc: http://www.ungerhu.com/jxh/clc.welcome.txt
    clc faq-list : http://www.faqs.org/faqs/C-faq/faq/
    clc OT guide : http://benpfaff.org/writings/clc/off-topic.html
     
    Irrwahn Grausewitz, Apr 15, 2004
    #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. bob
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    547
    SM Ryan
    Jan 26, 2006
  2. bob
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    398
  3. Kavya
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    513
    Dik T. Winter
    Oct 28, 2006
  4. SpOiLeR
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    811
    SpOiLeR
    Oct 19, 2005
  5. Replies:
    11
    Views:
    696
    James Kuyper
    Sep 22, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page