Re: AUTO types doubt

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Seebs, Oct 6, 2013.

  1. Seebs

    Seebs Guest

    On 2013-10-05, rashan <> wrote:
    > I thought auto was a C++ construction? However my C compiler will except
    > it. BUT auto is NOT necessary to shadow a global variable. At least in my
    > compiler.


    As noted elsewhere, this is because it's a convention used to make it easier
    for people within an organization to read each others' code.

    I wish to point out two other things:

    1. Using "" as an address will get your messages blocked
    automatically by a lot of killfiles, as many spammers use that address. Use
    some other address.
    2. The word "doubt" has different connotations in different dialects of
    English. In many dialects of English, "doubt" has the connotation that
    someone has told you something and you don't believe them. What this means
    is that if you use it universally for any form of uncertainty or request
    for information, you will likely sometimes be misunderstood to be accusing
    people of lying.

    In general, if you want information about something, "question" is a neutral
    term. "Doubt" carries the connotation that you think something you've been
    told is wrong. (It's also rarely used without an object; you would usually say
    "I doubt <X>", or "I have a doubt about <X>", not "I have a doubt".
    Conveniently, this often provides disambiguation for the alternative usage.)

    -s
    --
    Copyright 2013, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach /
    http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
    Autism Speaks does not speak for me. http://autisticadvocacy.org/
    I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.
    Seebs, Oct 6, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Seebs

    James Kuyper Guest

    On 10/07/2013 12:52 PM, rashan wrote:
    ....
    > Thanks for this information. In fact, is NOT my email
    > address, I use it, to avoid spam. Sorry, I would thought this obvious!


    It was perfectly obvious; but the obvious is not always what's true -
    it's also frequently used both by trolls and by spammers, for reasons
    that have nothing to do with avoiding spam.

    > By doubt I don't think, " something you've been told is wrong ", I mean
    > the meaning of asking a question.


    Yes, but AFAIK, "doubt" has that meaning only in those dialects of
    English in use in India and its vicinity. It does not have that meaning
    in either American nor British English, and I doubt that it has that
    meaning in most of the other dialects of English, either. For messages
    posted to international English-oriented forums like this one, it's best
    to use "question" rather than "doubt", to avoid confusion.

    I'm curious: in your dialect, do the phrases "I have a doubt" and "I
    have a question" have exactly the same meaning, or different meanings,
    or do you simply never use the word "question" that way?
    James Kuyper, Oct 7, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. rashan <> writes:
    > On Sat, 05 Oct 2013 23:26:15 +0000, Seebs wrote:
    >> On 2013-10-05, rashan <> wrote:

    [...]
    >> I wish to point out two other things:
    >>
    >> 1. Using "" as an address will get your messages
    >> blocked automatically by a lot of killfiles, as many spammers use that
    >> address. Use some other address.
    >> 2. The word "doubt" has different connotations in different dialects of
    >> English. In many dialects of English, "doubt" has the connotation that
    >> someone has told you something and you don't believe them. What this
    >> means is that if you use it universally for any form of uncertainty or
    >> request for information, you will likely sometimes be misunderstood to
    >> be accusing people of lying.
    >>
    >> In general, if you want information about something, "question" is a
    >> neutral term. "Doubt" carries the connotation that you think something
    >> you've been told is wrong. (It's also rarely used without an object; you
    >> would usually say "I doubt <X>", or "I have a doubt about <X>", not "I
    >> have a doubt". Conveniently, this often provides disambiguation for the
    >> alternative usage.)
    >>
    >> -s

    >
    > Thanks for this information. In fact, is NOT my email
    > address, I use it, to avoid spam. Sorry, I would thought this obvious! I
    > will read messages in this forum, if you want to send me an email I can
    > tell you my true address for sure.


    It's almost entirely obvious that is not your real
    e-mail address.

    Actually it's not 100% obvious. nospam.com is a real domain, and
    could be a valid e-mail address belonging to someone
    else. (I have another address that looks fake but can actually receive
    e-mail. No, I'm not going to post it here.)

    The problem Seebs was pointing out is that, because some spammers use
    , some readers here may automatically ignore messages
    from that address.

    If you don't want to use your actual e-mail address, you can use a fake
    address that can't possibly belong to someone else; "example.com" is
    guaranteed to be invalid, or you can use an invalid TLD (".xyz" is
    probably safe for now). Or you can register a free e-mail account that
    you use only for posting here.

    > By doubt I don't think, " something you've been told is wrong ", I mean
    > the meaning of asking a question.


    When posting to an international forum, you might consider using the
    word "question" rather than "doubt" to avoid confusion. (Though most of
    us here in comp.lang.c are familiar with the usage.)

    > Hope it is clear now, thanks for all ur answers. I use a lot of global
    > vars, it's annoying, to check each time if my local vars are shadowing.
    > But it is, seems, necessary :(


    Another bit of advice: please don't use abbreviations like "ur".
    Spell out the whole word "your". Typing "ur" rather than "your"
    might save you a fraction of a second typing it, but it trips up
    a lot of people reading it.

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
    "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
    Keith Thompson, Oct 7, 2013
    #3
  4. Seebs

    Seebs Guest

    On 2013-10-07, James Kuyper <> wrote:
    > On 10/07/2013 12:52 PM, rashan wrote:
    > ...
    >> Thanks for this information. In fact, is NOT my email
    >> address, I use it, to avoid spam. Sorry, I would thought this obvious!


    > It was perfectly obvious; but the obvious is not always what's true -
    > it's also frequently used both by trolls and by spammers, for reasons
    > that have nothing to do with avoiding spam.


    Yes. It's not that we think it's the poster's address; it's that I have
    had "" killfiled for many years, and given how much that
    gets posted under that address is spam, that's not changing.

    >> By doubt I don't think, " something you've been told is wrong ", I mean
    >> the meaning of asking a question.


    > Yes, but AFAIK, "doubt" has that meaning only in those dialects of
    > English in use in India and its vicinity. It does not have that meaning
    > in either American nor British English, and I doubt that it has that
    > meaning in most of the other dialects of English, either.


    Exactly. To someone who learned American or British English, and hasn't
    specifically been told about this quirk of Indian English, they're going
    to either be confused, or simply assume that the speaker is accusing someone
    somewhere of lying. It took me a few such posts before I realized there
    must be some other usage I wasn't familiar with; the first few I saw, as
    I recall, I thought the poster was accusing their programming teacher of
    lying to them.

    -s
    --
    Copyright 2013, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach /
    http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
    Autism Speaks does not speak for me. http://autisticadvocacy.org/
    I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.
    Seebs, Oct 8, 2013
    #4
  5. Seebs

    Nobody Guest

    On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 02:13:46 +0000, Seebs wrote:

    >> Yes, but AFAIK, "doubt" has that meaning only in those dialects of
    >> English in use in India and its vicinity. It does not have that meaning
    >> in either American nor British English, and I doubt that it has that
    >> meaning in most of the other dialects of English, either.

    >
    > Exactly. To someone who learned American or British English, and hasn't
    > specifically been told about this quirk of Indian English, they're going
    > to either be confused, or simply assume that the speaker is accusing someone
    > somewhere of lying.


    I doubt that. I never had any trouble understanding what was meant.

    The "lying" aspect only comes into play when you express doubt regarding
    something which is being asserted as truth. It's perfectly reasonable to
    express doubts about someone's predictions or hypotheses.
    Nobody, Oct 8, 2013
    #5
  6. Seebs

    Seebs Guest

    On 2013-10-08, Nobody <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 02:13:46 +0000, Seebs wrote:
    >>> Yes, but AFAIK, "doubt" has that meaning only in those dialects of
    >>> English in use in India and its vicinity. It does not have that meaning
    >>> in either American nor British English, and I doubt that it has that
    >>> meaning in most of the other dialects of English, either.


    >> Exactly. To someone who learned American or British English, and hasn't
    >> specifically been told about this quirk of Indian English, they're going
    >> to either be confused, or simply assume that the speaker is accusing someone
    >> somewhere of lying.


    > I doubt that. I never had any trouble understanding what was meant.


    Maybe you didn't. Many people do.

    > The "lying" aspect only comes into play when you express doubt regarding
    > something which is being asserted as truth. It's perfectly reasonable to
    > express doubts about someone's predictions or hypotheses.


    Well, lying, incompetent, unqualified, etcetera. But when someone makes an
    assertion that's clearly a straightforward one in a field where they present
    as competent to answer questions, and you say you have doubts about it,
    that's usually interpreted as suggesting that they are being dishonest
    either about the claim or about their qualifications. "A doubt" is sort of
    non-idiomatic, but if you happen not to be familiar with the usage, it can
    result in confusion.

    -s
    --
    Copyright 2013, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach /
    http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
    Autism Speaks does not speak for me. http://autisticadvocacy.org/
    I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.
    Seebs, Oct 8, 2013
    #6
  7. Seebs

    Geoff Guest

    I am always amused by the amount of time this group spends discussing
    the usage of the word "doubt" versus "question" when they know
    perfectly well that when such usage occurs it comes from a culture
    that invented the first symbol for zero, all while they are perfectly
    content with the state of the multiplicity of usage for "static" in C.
    Geoff, Oct 8, 2013
    #7
  8. Seebs

    Joe Pfeiffer Guest

    Nobody <> writes:

    > On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 02:13:46 +0000, Seebs wrote:
    >
    >>> Yes, but AFAIK, "doubt" has that meaning only in those dialects of
    >>> English in use in India and its vicinity. It does not have that meaning
    >>> in either American nor British English, and I doubt that it has that
    >>> meaning in most of the other dialects of English, either.

    >>
    >> Exactly. To someone who learned American or British English, and hasn't
    >> specifically been told about this quirk of Indian English, they're going
    >> to either be confused, or simply assume that the speaker is accusing someone
    >> somewhere of lying.

    >
    > I doubt that. I never had any trouble understanding what was meant.
    >
    > The "lying" aspect only comes into play when you express doubt regarding
    > something which is being asserted as truth. It's perfectly reasonable to
    > express doubts about someone's predictions or hypotheses.


    FWIW, the first time I ever encountered that usage was when a student
    asked me a question in class, and expressed it as having a doubt about
    something I'd said. I didn't jump to thinking he was asserting I was
    lying, but I was preparing to justify what I'd said when I realized that
    wasn't what he'd meant.

    Something I find morbidly interesting in both email and usenet is
    the extent to which "I think you're wrong" has been replaced with
    "YOU'RE LYING!!!!" in recent years.
    Joe Pfeiffer, Oct 8, 2013
    #8
  9. Seebs

    James Kuyper Guest

    On 10/08/2013 04:25 PM, Geoff wrote:
    > ... while they are perfectly
    > content with the state of the multiplicity of usage for "static" in C.


    Do you know of anyone who has expressed contentment over that issue? I'm
    certainly not content with it - the different meanings it currently
    conveys should have been given different names. It's been argued that
    internal linkage should have been made the default, in which case that
    meaning of "static" wouldn't even have been needed.

    Backwards compatibility issues mean that this will never be fixed, and
    we may be resigned to that fact, but it doesn't mean that we're content
    with it.
    James Kuyper, Oct 8, 2013
    #9
  10. Seebs

    Geoff Guest

    On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 16:40:56 -0400, James Kuyper
    <> wrote:

    >On 10/08/2013 04:25 PM, Geoff wrote:
    >> ... while they are perfectly
    >> content with the state of the multiplicity of usage for "static" in C.

    >
    >Do you know of anyone who has expressed contentment over that issue? I'm
    >certainly not content with it - the different meanings it currently
    >conveys should have been given different names. It's been argued that
    >internal linkage should have been made the default, in which case that
    >meaning of "static" wouldn't even have been needed.
    >
    >Backwards compatibility issues mean that this will never be fixed, and
    >we may be resigned to that fact, but it doesn't mean that we're content
    >with it.


    Ah, I am glad we cleared that up. We can now move on from discussing
    that which we can do nothing about. We need not be content, we only
    need to cope.
    Geoff, Oct 8, 2013
    #10
  11. Geoff <> writes:
    > I am always amused by the amount of time this group spends discussing
    > the usage of the word "doubt" versus "question" when they know
    > perfectly well that when such usage occurs it comes from a culture
    > that invented the first symbol for zero, all while they are perfectly
    > content with the state of the multiplicity of usage for "static" in C.


    The point is that not everyone outside the English-speaking parts of
    South Asia knows about that using of "doubt", and not everyine in that
    region knows that it's a potential problem.

    Oh, wait, they invented zero? Then I guess it doesn't matter.

    Seriously, the goal of these discussions is to improve communication and
    avoid misunderstandings in both directions. Not everyone here has been
    around long enough to have seen the previous incarnation of the
    discussion. (Maybe it should be in the FAQ, but it hasn't been updated
    in about 8 years.)

    I'm not aware of anyone who's "perfectly content" with the overloading
    of "static". There's just nothing we can do about it, so we accept it.

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
    "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
    Keith Thompson, Oct 8, 2013
    #11
  12. Geoff <> writes:
    > On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 16:40:56 -0400, James Kuyper
    > <> wrote:
    >>On 10/08/2013 04:25 PM, Geoff wrote:
    >>> ... while they are perfectly
    >>> content with the state of the multiplicity of usage for "static" in C.

    >>
    >>Do you know of anyone who has expressed contentment over that issue? I'm
    >>certainly not content with it - the different meanings it currently
    >>conveys should have been given different names. It's been argued that
    >>internal linkage should have been made the default, in which case that
    >>meaning of "static" wouldn't even have been needed.
    >>
    >>Backwards compatibility issues mean that this will never be fixed, and
    >>we may be resigned to that fact, but it doesn't mean that we're content
    >>with it.

    >
    > Ah, I am glad we cleared that up. We can now move on from discussing
    > that which we can do nothing about. We need not be content, we only
    > need to cope.


    Did you have an actual point?

    --
    Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
    Working, but not speaking, for JetHead Development, Inc.
    "We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
    -- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
    Keith Thompson, Oct 8, 2013
    #12
  13. Seebs

    Seebs Guest

    On 2013-10-08, Geoff <> wrote:
    > I am always amused by the amount of time this group spends discussing
    > the usage of the word "doubt" versus "question" when they know
    > perfectly well that when such usage occurs it comes from a culture
    > that invented the first symbol for zero,


    I didn't know that, I thought it was Arabic. Anyway, the reason I do it is
    that after a few years of having coworkers using two or three significantly
    different dialects of English, I've learned that taking a minute or three
    to point out that, hey, there's a usage difference here and you may not be
    understanding each other, or you may want to be aware of that, pays off
    huge dividends in people not fighting over what turns out to be nothing at
    all.

    (My favorite recentish discovery: apparently, in British English, "quite"
    sometimes means "not-very". This is the polar opposite of how I always
    understood it!)

    > all while they are perfectly
    > content with the state of the multiplicity of usage for "static" in C.


    The multiplicity of usage is mitigated a little by the fact that in any
    *given* instance, you can state with confidence what static is doing there,
    or if it's a new usage, your compiler will generally reject it as invalid.
    You don't have cases where people from one community have a very different
    belief about what it means than people from another.

    -s
    --
    Copyright 2013, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach /
    http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
    Autism Speaks does not speak for me. http://autisticadvocacy.org/
    I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.
    Seebs, Oct 8, 2013
    #13
  14. Seebs

    Seebs Guest

    On 2013-10-08, Joe Pfeiffer <> wrote:
    > FWIW, the first time I ever encountered that usage was when a student
    > asked me a question in class, and expressed it as having a doubt about
    > something I'd said. I didn't jump to thinking he was asserting I was
    > lying, but I was preparing to justify what I'd said when I realized that
    > wasn't what he'd meant.


    Good catch on your part, then! I tend to be slow to spot that someone's got
    a usage unfamiliar to me.

    > Something I find morbidly interesting in both email and usenet is
    > the extent to which "I think you're wrong" has been replaced with
    > "YOU'RE LYING!!!!" in recent years.


    Yeah. Same in lots of other fields. People tend to assume that a disagreement
    about a course of action is based on opposition to the stated goal, not on
    a belief that the goal would not be best achieved that way, and that
    opposition to a given goal is based on malice, not priorities. It's sort of
    disturbing.

    -s
    --
    Copyright 2013, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach /
    http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
    Autism Speaks does not speak for me. http://autisticadvocacy.org/
    I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.
    Seebs, Oct 8, 2013
    #14
  15. Seebs

    Ian Collins Guest

    Seebs wrote:
    > On 2013-10-08, Joe Pfeiffer <> wrote:
    >> FWIW, the first time I ever encountered that usage was when a student
    >> asked me a question in class, and expressed it as having a doubt about
    >> something I'd said. I didn't jump to thinking he was asserting I was
    >> lying, but I was preparing to justify what I'd said when I realized that
    >> wasn't what he'd meant.

    >
    > Good catch on your part, then! I tend to be slow to spot that someone's got
    > a usage unfamiliar to me.


    You should try working on both sides of the pond!

    Mind you, after 30 odd years I only recently discovered you lot have two
    pronunciations of "primer" :)

    --
    Ian Collins
    Ian Collins, Oct 8, 2013
    #15
  16. Seebs

    Seebs Guest

    On 2013-10-08, Ian Collins <> wrote:
    > You should try working on both sides of the pond!


    I would be so doomed.

    > Mind you, after 30 odd years I only recently discovered you lot have two
    > pronunciations of "primer" :)


    The Economist had a list once of words where British and American usage are
    antonyms. ("moot" and "table", in the sense of issues at meetings, among
    them.)

    -s
    --
    Copyright 2013, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach /
    http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
    Autism Speaks does not speak for me. http://autisticadvocacy.org/
    I am not speaking for my employer, although they do rent some of my opinions.
    Seebs, Oct 8, 2013
    #16
  17. Seebs

    James Kuyper Guest

    On 10/08/2013 06:31 PM, David Brown wrote:
    > On 08/10/13 23:27, Seebs wrote:

    ....
    >> I didn't know that, I thought it was Arabic. Anyway, the reason I do it is
    >> that after a few years of having coworkers using two or three significantly
    >> different dialects of English, I've learned that taking a minute or three
    >> to point out that, hey, there's a usage difference here and you may not be
    >> understanding each other, or you may want to be aware of that, pays off
    >> huge dividends in people not fighting over what turns out to be nothing at
    >> all.
    >>
    >> (My favorite recentish discovery: apparently, in British English, "quite"
    >> sometimes means "not-very". This is the polar opposite of how I always
    >> understood it!)
    >>

    >
    > <http://www.buzzfeed.com/lukelewis/what-british-people-say-versus-what-they-mean>


    The differences shown there have nothing to do with the differences
    between British English and the other dialects. To the extent that those
    differences are real, they reflect character flaws in the speaker.
    Britain doesn't even come close to having a monopoly on such character
    flaws.
    James Kuyper, Oct 8, 2013
    #17
  18. Seebs

    Geoff Guest

    On Wed, 09 Oct 2013 10:39:03 +1300, Ian Collins <>
    wrote:

    >You should try working on both sides of the pond!


    Or working with British and American electrical engineers who have
    standardized on two different conventions for an electric current,
    electron flow and conventional flow. Sourcing and sinking have vastly
    different meanings.
    Geoff, Oct 8, 2013
    #18
  19. Seebs

    Geoff Guest

    On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 14:16:42 -0700, Keith Thompson <>
    wrote:

    >Geoff <> writes:
    >> On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 16:40:56 -0400, James Kuyper
    >> <> wrote:
    >>>On 10/08/2013 04:25 PM, Geoff wrote:
    >>>> ... while they are perfectly
    >>>> content with the state of the multiplicity of usage for "static" in C.
    >>>
    >>>Do you know of anyone who has expressed contentment over that issue? I'm
    >>>certainly not content with it - the different meanings it currently
    >>>conveys should have been given different names. It's been argued that
    >>>internal linkage should have been made the default, in which case that
    >>>meaning of "static" wouldn't even have been needed.
    >>>
    >>>Backwards compatibility issues mean that this will never be fixed, and
    >>>we may be resigned to that fact, but it doesn't mean that we're content
    >>>with it.

    >>
    >> Ah, I am glad we cleared that up. We can now move on from discussing
    >> that which we can do nothing about. We need not be content, we only
    >> need to cope.

    >
    >Did you have an actual point?


    You don't see it? Hmmm... I am disappointed.
    Geoff, Oct 8, 2013
    #19
  20. Seebs

    Geoff Guest

    On 08 Oct 2013 21:27:17 GMT, Seebs <> wrote:

    [snip]

    >>from a culture that invented the first symbol for zero,

    >
    >I didn't know that, I thought it was Arabic.


    The Chinese had a symbol for zero: ? (ling)

    They also had a blank or circle (which came later) for it. The Chinese
    were the first to use a positional notation. That is, the value of a
    digit depended on it's post ion in the number. But they added an extra
    bit of complication to it, seventy five was written as seven ten five
    meaning seven times ten plus five, and not seven five as we do in the
    West. But zero has a place there, the numerals one thousand zero four
    is 1004.

    The I-Ching is a binary notation of 64 states. One develops an I-Ching
    fortune by asking a question and tossing a coin or flipping a binary
    state object six times to develop a six digit state of ones and zeros
    and then looks up that state to get an answer to the question. In the
    I-Ching a one is a single horizontal bar and a zero is a bar broken in
    the middle.

    The influence of Chinese and Indian culture in the region is
    indisputable. The Arabic zero derives from the Chinese invention of it
    and arrives in the West via Fibonacci.

    It's hard to tell which culture had the greatest influence on South
    Asia and Southeast Asia. The Chinese empire, while very powerful was
    also very non-expansionist and internally focused. They had their
    hands full just keeping the disparate kingdoms together. Their
    acceptance of Buddhism from India seems to indicate the cultures at
    the time were peers and demonstrates a willingness to incorporate the
    concepts from other cultures that the West has yet to learn, as
    demonstrated by the insistence by some that a word like "doubt" means
    "I doubt your words."

    I don't know where this usage of "doubt" that is demonstrated by South
    Asian's comes from. I'd be looking for the traces of the Jesuits or
    other missionaries or the English overlords in that region as a
    source. Perhaps it comes from a literal translation of some Indian
    word into English that was incorrectly translated to "doubt" at that
    time and persists in their current educational system.

    But it's something that we can't do anything about. After all, it's a
    historic legacy that persists in the codification of the language,
    just like "static".
    Geoff, Oct 9, 2013
    #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 Nelson

    doubt about doubt

    Bob Nelson, Jul 28, 2006, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    587
  2. linkswanted
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    864
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    529
  4. Nobody

    Re: AUTO types doubt

    Nobody, Oct 5, 2013, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    25
    Views:
    280
    Tim Rentsch
    Nov 15, 2013
  5. Eric Sosman

    Re: AUTO types doubt

    Eric Sosman, Oct 5, 2013, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    160
    Keith Thompson
    Oct 8, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page