Re: Function terminology QUESTION

Discussion in 'C Programming' started by Les Cargill, Oct 13, 2013.

  1. Les Cargill

    Les Cargill Guest

    rashan wrote:
    > Hello,
    >
    > Do you say there is a difference between " parameter " and " argument "
    > in as what is passed to C functions?
    >
    > Would one be for functions and another for sub/method or so? Or ByRef/
    > ByVal?
    >
    > Regards,
    >


    No. Those are absolute synonyms. A "method" is just a function where
    you don't care about the return value.

    --
    Les Cargill
    Les Cargill, Oct 13, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Les Cargill

    Öö Tiib Guest

    On Sunday, 13 October 2013 21:17:51 UTC+3, Les Cargill wrote:
    > rashan wrote:
    > > Do you say there is a difference between " parameter " and " argument "
    > > in as what is passed to C functions?


    That is same in all programming languages. Parameter is internal for
    subroutine or procedure. Same with functions of C. Argument is the same
    thing from perspective of caller of that function. Caller fills parameters
    with arguments.

    > > Would one be for functions and another for sub/method or so? Or ByRef/
    > > ByVal?

    >
    > No. Those are absolute synonyms. A "method" is just a function where
    > you don't care about the return value.


    Not sure what you mean. Return value is simply special "out" parameter
    present in many programming languages that may be missing or present
    in subroutines. That does not make something a "method".

    A "method" is OOP term. It means a subroutine or procedure that is
    associated with object. Associated object is passed to subroutine as
    "in-out" parameter. In OOP languages the associated object is
    indicated differently from other arguments outside of call
    ('object.method(42)') and represented specially from other
    parameters ('this' or 'self') inside of subroutine.

    C does not have support for such thing so someone doing OOP using C
    simply uses first parameter of function as "pointer to associated
    object of method". On most cases it is good and clear enough and no
    special syntax sugar is needed.
    Öö Tiib, Oct 13, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Öö Tiib <> wrote:
    > On Sunday, 13 October 2013 21:17:51 UTC+3, Les Cargill wrote:
    >> rashan wrote:
    >> > Do you say there is a difference between " parameter " and " argument "
    >> > in as what is passed to C functions?


    > That is same in all programming languages. Parameter is internal for
    > subroutine or procedure. Same with functions of C. Argument is the
    > same thing from perspective of caller of that function.
    > Caller fills parameters with arguments.


    In Fortran they are actual argument and dummy argument. I always have
    to remember which language is being discussed before writing.

    (snip)
    >> No. Those are absolute synonyms. A "method" is just a function where
    >> you don't care about the return value.


    (snip)

    > A "method" is OOP term. It means a subroutine or procedure that is
    > associated with object. Associated object is passed to subroutine as
    > "in-out" parameter. In OOP languages the associated object is
    > indicated differently from other arguments outside of call
    > ('object.method(42)') and represented specially from other
    > parameters ('this' or 'self') inside of subroutine.


    Java also has static methods which don't have a this object.
    They are still methods, not functions.

    -- glen
    glen herrmannsfeldt, Oct 13, 2013
    #3
  4. Les Cargill <> writes:
    > rashan wrote:
    >> Do you say there is a difference between " parameter " and " argument "
    >> in as what is passed to C functions?
    >>
    >> Would one be for functions and another for sub/method or so? Or ByRef/
    >> ByVal?

    >
    > No. Those are absolute synonyms. A "method" is just a function where
    > you don't care about the return value.


    I've never seen the word "method" used that way. The C standard
    never uses the word "method" in that sense.

    In C++ and other OO languages, "method" is often used to refer to
    a function (or procedure, or subroutine, or ...) that's associated
    with a class. It typically has nothing to do with the return value.
    The C++ standard, as I recall, doesn't use the term "method", but
    refers to them as "member functions". C doesn't have "methods"
    in that sensse.

    --
    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 13, 2013
    #4
  5. Les Cargill

    Les Cargill Guest

    Öö Tiib wrote:
    > On Sunday, 13 October 2013 21:17:51 UTC+3, Les Cargill wrote:
    >> rashan wrote:
    >>> Do you say there is a difference between " parameter " and " argument "
    >>> in as what is passed to C functions?

    >
    > That is same in all programming languages. Parameter is internal for
    > subroutine or procedure. Same with functions of C. Argument is the same
    > thing from perspective of caller of that function. Caller fills parameters
    > with arguments.
    >
    >>> Would one be for functions and another for sub/method or so? Or ByRef/
    >>> ByVal?

    >>
    >> No. Those are absolute synonyms. A "method" is just a function where
    >> you don't care about the return value.

    >
    > Not sure what you mean. Return value is simply special "out" parameter
    > present in many programming languages that may be missing or present
    > in subroutines. That does not make something a "method".
    >


    I put it in quotes for a reason - Pascal for example has "procdures"
    and "functions" which follow the distinction I laid out.

    > A "method" is OOP term. It means a subroutine or procedure that is
    > associated with object. Associated object is passed to subroutine as
    > "in-out" parameter. In OOP languages the associated object is
    > indicated differently from other arguments outside of call
    > ('object.method(42)') and represented specially from other
    > parameters ('this' or 'self') inside of subroutine.
    >


    Still...


    > C does not have support for such thing so someone doing OOP using C
    > simply uses first parameter of function as "pointer to associated
    > object of method". On most cases it is good and clear enough and no
    > special syntax sugar is needed.
    >


    --
    Les Cargill
    Les Cargill, Oct 14, 2013
    #5
  6. Les Cargill

    James Kuyper Guest

    On 10/13/2013 10:13 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
    > �� Tiib wrote:
    >> On Sunday, 13 October 2013 21:17:51 UTC+3, Les Cargill wrote:

    ....
    >>> No. Those are absolute synonyms. A "method" is just a function where
    >>> you don't care about the return value.

    >>
    >> Not sure what you mean. Return value is simply special "out" parameter
    >> present in many programming languages that may be missing or present
    >> in subroutines. That does not make something a "method".
    >>

    >
    > I put it in quotes for a reason - Pascal for example has "procdures"
    > and "functions" which follow the distinction I laid out.


    Yes, I'm also familiar with other languages that make the same
    distinction - between functions and procedures. Can you cite a context
    where that same distinction is made using the term "method" rather than
    "procedure"?
    --
    James Kuyper
    James Kuyper, Oct 14, 2013
    #6
  7. Les Cargill <> writes:
    > Öö Tiib wrote:
    >> On Sunday, 13 October 2013 21:17:51 UTC+3, Les Cargill wrote:
    >>> rashan wrote:

    [...]
    >>>> Would one be for functions and another for sub/method or so? Or ByRef/
    >>>> ByVal?
    >>>
    >>> No. Those are absolute synonyms. A "method" is just a function where
    >>> you don't care about the return value.

    >>
    >> Not sure what you mean. Return value is simply special "out" parameter
    >> present in many programming languages that may be missing or present
    >> in subroutines. That does not make something a "method".

    >
    > I put it in quotes for a reason - Pascal for example has "procdures"
    > and "functions" which follow the distinction I laid out.


    Yes, it does. (More precisely, Pascal procedures don't have
    return values at all.)

    But I don't understand what you mean when you say that you "put it
    in quotes for a reason". What is that reason?

    Bottom line: that's not what the word "method" means.

    I suggest that you've simply made a mistake. Trying to justify it
    is not helpful. (Unless you can support your claim that "method"
    is used to mean "a function where you don't care about the return
    value", which would surprise me.)

    [...]

    --
    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 14, 2013
    #7
  8. Öö Tiib <> writes:
    > On Sunday, 13 October 2013 21:17:51 UTC+3, Les Cargill wrote:
    >> rashan wrote:
    >> > Do you say there is a difference between " parameter " and " argument "
    >> > in as what is passed to C functions?

    >
    > That is same in all programming languages. Parameter is internal for
    > subroutine or procedure. Same with functions of C. Argument is the same
    > thing from perspective of caller of that function. Caller fills parameters
    > with arguments.


    Most programming languages do make that distinction. Not all of them
    use the words "parameter" and "argument" to make that distinction.
    Ada, for example, uses the terms "formal parameter" and "actual
    parameter".

    [...]

    --
    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 14, 2013
    #8
  9. Les Cargill

    Les Cargill Guest

    James Kuyper wrote:
    > On 10/13/2013 10:13 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
    >> �� Tiib wrote:
    >>> On Sunday, 13 October 2013 21:17:51 UTC+3, Les Cargill wrote:

    > ...
    >>>> No. Those are absolute synonyms. A "method" is just a function where
    >>>> you don't care about the return value.
    >>>
    >>> Not sure what you mean. Return value is simply special "out" parameter
    >>> present in many programming languages that may be missing or present
    >>> in subroutines. That does not make something a "method".
    >>>

    >>
    >> I put it in quotes for a reason - Pascal for example has "procdures"
    >> and "functions" which follow the distinction I laid out.

    >
    > Yes, I'm also familiar with other languages that make the same
    > distinction - between functions and procedures. Can you cite a context
    > where that same distinction is made using the term "method" rather than
    > "procedure"?
    >


    I beleive "method" is C++ (or perhaps other OO language)
    specific.

    It was the OP's term....

    --
    Les Cargill
    Les Cargill, Oct 14, 2013
    #9
  10. Les Cargill

    Les Cargill Guest

    Keith Thompson wrote:
    > Les Cargill <> writes:
    >> Öö Tiib wrote:
    >>> On Sunday, 13 October 2013 21:17:51 UTC+3, Les Cargill wrote:
    >>>> rashan wrote:

    > [...]
    >>>>> Would one be for functions and another for sub/method or so? Or ByRef/
    >>>>> ByVal?
    >>>>
    >>>> No. Those are absolute synonyms. A "method" is just a function where
    >>>> you don't care about the return value.
    >>>
    >>> Not sure what you mean. Return value is simply special "out" parameter
    >>> present in many programming languages that may be missing or present
    >>> in subroutines. That does not make something a "method".

    >>
    >> I put it in quotes for a reason - Pascal for example has "procdures"
    >> and "functions" which follow the distinction I laid out.

    >
    > Yes, it does. (More precisely, Pascal procedures don't have
    > return values at all.)
    >
    > But I don't understand what you mean when you say that you "put it
    > in quotes for a reason". What is that reason?
    >


    Really???

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

    > Bottom line: that's not what the word "method" means.
    >
    > I suggest that you've simply made a mistake. Trying to justify it
    > is not helpful. (Unless you can support your claim that "method"
    > is used to mean "a function where you don't care about the return
    > value", which would surprise me.)
    >
    > [...]
    >


    I was gently trying to steer the OP towards that distinction.

    --
    Les Cargill
    Les Cargill, Oct 14, 2013
    #10
  11. Les Cargill

    James Kuyper Guest

    On 10/14/2013 08:24 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
    > James Kuyper wrote:
    >> On 10/13/2013 10:13 PM, Les Cargill wrote:
    >>> �� Tiib wrote:
    >>>> On Sunday, 13 October 2013 21:17:51 UTC+3, Les Cargill wrote:

    >> ...
    >>>>> No. Those are absolute synonyms. A "method" is just a function where
    >>>>> you don't care about the return value.
    >>>>
    >>>> Not sure what you mean. Return value is simply special "out" parameter
    >>>> present in many programming languages that may be missing or present
    >>>> in subroutines. That does not make something a "method".
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> I put it in quotes for a reason - Pascal for example has "procdures"
    >>> and "functions" which follow the distinction I laid out.

    >>
    >> Yes, I'm also familiar with other languages that make the same
    >> distinction - between functions and procedures. Can you cite a context
    >> where that same distinction is made using the term "method" rather than
    >> "procedure"?
    >>

    >
    > I beleive "method" is C++ (or perhaps other OO language)
    > specific.


    The C++ standard does not use the term with that meaning, but it is in
    common use in the OO community, and can be used to describe what C++
    calls "member functions". And in that context, a method differs from an
    ordinary function by reason of being connected to an object (I'm not
    sure whether C++ static member functions, which are connected to an
    object type rather than to a specific object, are considered methods).

    It has nothing to do with whether or not a function has a return value.
    Methods are quite capable of returning values, and ordinary functions
    are quite capable of not returning a value.

    > It was the OP's term....


    Yes. He seems quite clueless about C, but apparently has some
    familiarity with programming in general. Therefore, it seems quite
    likely that he was using the term in it's OO meaning described above,
    which is completely unrelated to the meaning you describe.

    Again, can you cite any context where "method" is used to refer to a
    function with no return value, rather than a function that's connected
    to an object?
    --
    James Kuyper
    James Kuyper, Oct 14, 2013
    #11
  12. Les Cargill

    James Kuyper Guest

    On 10/14/2013 08:32 AM, Les Cargill wrote:
    > Keith Thompson wrote:
    >> Les Cargill <> writes:
    >>> Öö Tiib wrote:
    >>>> On Sunday, 13 October 2013 21:17:51 UTC+3, Les Cargill wrote:
    >>>>> rashan wrote:

    >> [...]
    >>>>>> Would one be for functions and another for sub/method or so? Or ByRef/
    >>>>>> ByVal?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No. Those are absolute synonyms. A "method" is just a function where
    >>>>> you don't care about the return value.
    >>>>
    >>>> Not sure what you mean. Return value is simply special "out" parameter
    >>>> present in many programming languages that may be missing or present
    >>>> in subroutines. That does not make something a "method".
    >>>
    >>> I put it in quotes for a reason - Pascal for example has "procdures"
    >>> and "functions" which follow the distinction I laid out.

    >>
    >> Yes, it does. (More precisely, Pascal procedures don't have
    >> return values at all.)
    >>
    >> But I don't understand what you mean when you say that you "put it
    >> in quotes for a reason". What is that reason?
    >>

    >
    > Really???
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes


    We know what scare quotes are, and what they mean. What's unclear is the
    reason why you chose to use scare quotes in this particular context.
    That article lists several reasons for using scare quotes, none of which
    seem reasonable unless we assume that you didn't understand what
    "method" means in an OO context - which seems increasingly likely.

    >> Bottom line: that's not what the word "method" means.
    >>
    >> I suggest that you've simply made a mistake. Trying to justify it
    >> is not helpful. (Unless you can support your claim that "method"
    >> is used to mean "a function where you don't care about the return
    >> value", which would surprise me.)
    >>
    >> [...]
    >>

    >
    > I was gently trying to steer the OP towards that distinction.


    You were trying to steer him toward that distinction (between functions
    associated with objects and functions that are not), by asserting that
    the term referred to an entirely unrelated distinction (between
    functions which return a values and ones that do not)? This is sometimes
    necessary, when you have a strong current running across your path - you
    might have to start your trip to Boston by steering in the direction of
    New York - but it seems like an odd approach to use in this context.

    --
    James Kuyper
    James Kuyper, Oct 14, 2013
    #12
  13. Les Cargill <> writes:
    > Keith Thompson wrote:
    >> Les Cargill <> writes:
    >>> Öö Tiib wrote:
    >>>> On Sunday, 13 October 2013 21:17:51 UTC+3, Les Cargill wrote:
    >>>>> rashan wrote:

    >> [...]
    >>>>>> Would one be for functions and another for sub/method or so? Or ByRef/
    >>>>>> ByVal?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> No. Those are absolute synonyms. A "method" is just a function where
    >>>>> you don't care about the return value.
    >>>>
    >>>> Not sure what you mean. Return value is simply special "out" parameter
    >>>> present in many programming languages that may be missing or present
    >>>> in subroutines. That does not make something a "method".
    >>>
    >>> I put it in quotes for a reason - Pascal for example has "procdures"
    >>> and "functions" which follow the distinction I laid out.

    >>
    >> Yes, it does. (More precisely, Pascal procedures don't have
    >> return values at all.)
    >>
    >> But I don't understand what you mean when you say that you "put it
    >> in quotes for a reason". What is that reason?

    >
    > Really???
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes


    Yes, really!!!

    >> Bottom line: that's not what the word "method" means.
    >>
    >> I suggest that you've simply made a mistake. Trying to justify it
    >> is not helpful. (Unless you can support your claim that "method"
    >> is used to mean "a function where you don't care about the return
    >> value", which would surprise me.)
    >>
    >> [...]

    >
    > I was gently trying to steer the OP towards that distinction.


    Instead you've created a great deal of confusion by providing a
    completely incorrect definition of the word "method". The scare
    quotes (if that's what they were) don't make it any more reasonable.

    The distinction between returning a value and not returning a
    value is not relevant to the OP's question; you introduced it to
    the discussion.

    I think you had a mistaken idea about what the word "method" means,
    and now you're trying to pretend that you wrote something that
    made sense. I suggest you stop digging.

    --
    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 14, 2013
    #13
  14. On 14-Oct-13 07:32, Les Cargill wrote:
    > Keith Thompson wrote:
    >> Les Cargill <> writes:
    >>> Öö Tiib wrote:
    >>>> On Sunday, 13 October 2013 21:17:51 UTC+3, Les Cargill wrote:
    >>>>> No. Those are absolute synonyms. A "method" is just a
    >>>>> function where you don't care about the return value.
    >>>>
    >>>> Not sure what you mean. Return value is simply special "out"
    >>>> parameter present in many programming languages that may be
    >>>> missing or present in subroutines. That does not make something
    >>>> a "method".
    >>>
    >>> I put it in quotes for a reason - Pascal for example has
    >>> "procdures" and "functions" which follow the distinction I laid
    >>> out.

    >>
    >> Yes, it does. (More precisely, Pascal procedures don't have return
    >> values at all.)
    >>
    >> But I don't understand what you mean when you say that you "put it
    >> in quotes for a reason". What is that reason?

    >
    > Really???
    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes


    Are you sure they were really scare quotes? It is normal in English to
    use quotes when defining words or when it is a "mention" rather than a
    "use". For instance,

    "A" is an article.

    In this case, those are not scare quotes; they are necessary to show
    that you are mentioning the word rather than using the word since the
    latter would be invalid grammar, though they may still be used even when
    not strictly necessary. For instance,

    A "dog" is a four-legged animal.

    Scare quotes, in contrast, are used to cast doubt on the use of a
    particular word that, without them, would seem legitimate. That doesn't
    seem to apply to your use of "procedures" and "functions".

    S

    --
    Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
    CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
    K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking
    Stephen Sprunk, Oct 14, 2013
    #14
  15. Les Cargill

    Les Cargill Guest

    Stephen Sprunk wrote:
    > On 14-Oct-13 07:32, Les Cargill wrote:
    >> Keith Thompson wrote:
    >>> Les Cargill <> writes:
    >>>> Öö Tiib wrote:
    >>>>> On Sunday, 13 October 2013 21:17:51 UTC+3, Les Cargill wrote:
    >>>>>> No. Those are absolute synonyms. A "method" is just a
    >>>>>> function where you don't care about the return value.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Not sure what you mean. Return value is simply special "out"
    >>>>> parameter present in many programming languages that may be
    >>>>> missing or present in subroutines. That does not make something
    >>>>> a "method".
    >>>>
    >>>> I put it in quotes for a reason - Pascal for example has
    >>>> "procdures" and "functions" which follow the distinction I laid
    >>>> out.
    >>>
    >>> Yes, it does. (More precisely, Pascal procedures don't have return
    >>> values at all.)
    >>>
    >>> But I don't understand what you mean when you say that you "put it
    >>> in quotes for a reason". What is that reason?

    >>
    >> Really???
    >>
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes

    >
    > Are you sure they were really scare quotes? It is normal in English to
    > use quotes when defining words or when it is a "mention" rather than a
    > "use". For instance,
    >
    > "A" is an article.
    >
    > In this case, those are not scare quotes; they are necessary to show
    > that you are mentioning the word rather than using the word since the
    > latter would be invalid grammar, though they may still be used even when
    > not strictly necessary. For instance,
    >
    > A "dog" is a four-legged animal.
    >
    > Scare quotes, in contrast, are used to cast doubt on the use of a
    > particular word that, without them, would seem legitimate. That doesn't
    > seem to apply to your use of "procedures" and "functions".
    >
    > S
    >



    I reveiewed the post I'd made; I had typed "method" when I meant to type
    "procedure".

    <rends garment; heaps ashes on head>

    CAN WE NOW GET ON WITH OUR LIVES? :)

    --
    Les Cargill
    Les Cargill, Oct 15, 2013
    #15
  16. Les Cargill

    gwowen Guest

    On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 1:25:37 AM UTC+1, Les Cargill wrote:

    > CAN WE NOW GET ON WITH OUR LIVES? :)


    Are you kidding? 99% of things that help people write useful C code (e.g. POSIX, threads, optimisation) have been declared "non-standard" (i.e. *unclean*) by the UseNet Cabal, so arguing about terminology and esoterica[0] is pretty much all we have left, once you tire of saying:

    "you'll get a better answer by asking in comp.programming.long-defunct-newsgroup-that-gets-3-posts-a-year"

    [0] Lets discuss signed arithmetic vs unsigned arithmetic again, so I can prove that my perfect recall of the standard is better than your near perfect recall of the standard. Bonus points if you pretend that everyone is coding to C11 these days.
    gwowen, Oct 18, 2013
    #16
  17. Les Cargill

    James Kuyper Guest

    On 10/18/2013 07:00 AM, gwowen wrote:
    > On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 1:25:37 AM UTC+1, Les Cargill wrote:
    >
    >> CAN WE NOW GET ON WITH OUR LIVES? :)

    >
    > Are you kidding? 99% of things that help people write useful C code
    > (e.g. POSIX, threads, optimisation) have been declared "non-standard"


    As of C2011, threads are entirely standard in C, so long as you're
    asking about C threads. A while back we had someone insisting on talking
    about POSIX threads here, rather than in any of the very active other
    forums that are dedicated to that standard, where he could have talked
    with experts on the subject. It would have been entirely appropriate to
    compare C threads with POSIX threads, and I'd be very interested in
    reading such a discussion, though I'm not competent to contribute to it.
    However, he had no interest in discussing C's new threading model at all.

    It's also entirely appropriate to discuss what kinds of optimization are
    (and are not) permitted by the C standard, and to discuss
    platform-independent optimization techniques. But why would you want to
    discuss platform-specific optimization techniques in a forum not
    dedicated to that platform? You'd be wasting the time of the people
    here that are not interested in that platform, and you'd be deliberately
    avoiding the greater expertise of the people in that forum.

    > (i.e. *unclean*) by the UseNet Cabal, so arguing about terminology


    There's nothing "unclean" about non-standard topics, they're just more
    appropriately discussed elsewhere. If the topic is of sufficient
    interest to generate a question, it's virtually guaranteed that there is
    some active forum somewhere discussing it, and if it's not about the use
    of standard C, it's virtually guaranteed that the appropriate forum has
    more participants willing and competent to discuss that topic than
    comp.lang.c does.

    > and esoterica[0] is pretty much all we have left, once you tire of
    > saying:


    I don't know about that - even with most of the trolls filtered out,
    there's still enough substantive discussion in this forum to cause me to
    spend more time monitoring this newsgroup than I can really afford to be
    spending. You might have a lot more spare time on your hands than I do.

    > "you'll get a better answer by asking in
    > comp.programming.long-defunct-newsgroup-that-gets-3-posts-a-year"


    If the most appropriate forum for discussing a given topic gets only 3
    posts a year, that topic is no longer of interest to any significant
    number of people, and does not generate any significant number of
    questions, neither here nor anywhere else. In the unlikely event that
    such a question arrives in an inappropriate forum such as this one, the
    chances of finding anyone who's even heard of the topic, much less an
    expert on the topic who can answer such questions, are quite miniscule.

    Note: I said "forum", not newsgroup. Usenet is NOT the entire world. The
    most appropriate forum for discussing a particular topic might be
    mailing list, a chat room, or a facebook page, or any of a steadily
    widening range of other possibilities.

    Most of the questions that inappropriately end up here are about such
    things as POSIX, Windows, Intel machines, or embedded systems, among
    other things. All of them are very active topics of discussion,
    generating at least dozens of questions and answers every day, possibly
    even hundreds or thousands. However, those questions are being asked and
    answered in the right forum, which is NOT here.
    --
    James Kuyper
    James Kuyper, Oct 18, 2013
    #17
  18. gwowen <> writes:

    > On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 1:25:37 AM UTC+1, Les Cargill wrote:
    >
    >> CAN WE NOW GET ON WITH OUR LIVES? :)

    >
    > Are you kidding? 99% of things that help people write useful C code
    > (e.g. POSIX, threads, optimisation) have been declared "non-standard"
    > (i.e. *unclean*) by the UseNet Cabal, so arguing about terminology and
    > esoterica[0] is pretty much all we have left,


    Are we reading the same group? I recall threads on

    coding rules for shaddow variables
    error handling code patterns
    flood-fill algorithms
    writing a function to check for C-syntax string literals
    the syntax of do .. while; and why it needs a terminating ';'
    card shuffling algorithms
    uses of const qualified pointers
    tail call elimination
    towers of hanoi solutions
    the efficiency of recursive solutions
    XML parsing and its use for configuration settings

    and quite a few of these involved actual C code. I'm sure this is not
    an exhaustive list.

    <snip>
    --
    Ben.
    Ben Bacarisse, Oct 18, 2013
    #18
    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. Replies:
    2
    Views:
    294
    Gary Herron
    Dec 24, 2006
  2. Paul
    Replies:
    63
    Views:
    1,241
  3. Eric Sosman

    Re: Function terminology QUESTION

    Eric Sosman, Oct 13, 2013, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    144
    Eric Sosman
    Oct 13, 2013
  4. James Kuyper

    Re: Function terminology QUESTION

    James Kuyper, Oct 13, 2013, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    154
    James Kuyper
    Oct 13, 2013
  5. August Karlstrom

    Re: Function terminology QUESTION

    August Karlstrom, Oct 13, 2013, in forum: C Programming
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    160
    Keith Thompson
    Oct 13, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page