Should we broaden the topicality of this group?

[Martien verbruggen]

When deciding what is topical and what is not, we should remember that
comp.lang.c is *not* the only newsgroup in town. There are newsgroups for
discussing the language definition, POSIX, Windows, and individual
implementations. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that some people
gravitate towards comp.lang.c even though their discussion subject bears
little or no relation to standard C. Should we be sending these folks on,
or should we be answering their questions here?

I think this is probably the most important criterion to keep in mind.
If there is already another place for these discussions, then it should
be moved on.

However, I do also believe that part of the problem stems from the way
in which these redirections are communicated, or, worse, not
communicated.

There are quite a few posts that simply state that something is
off-topic, with no help to the poster as to where to go instead. It
would greatly help if that information were included, where possible, in
the response post. A small paragraph with part of the answer, or even
the whole answer is probably ok as well, as long as it's accompanied by
the note that it's offtopic and where to find the better source of
information.

If you don't know the answer, and you don't know where a better forum
would be, and you're not feeling kindly dispositioned today, you should
probably refrain from answering at all.

If you do know the answer, or you think you do, and you know it's
off-topic, by all means, provide what you think is the answer, expand
the newsgroups header, set a follow-up, and say in your post that there
is a better forum to discuss this.

Positivie answers are generally better received than all-negative ones.

Martien

 

[Flash Gordon]

Keith Thompson wrote, On 29/09/07 21:54:

I see nothing wrong with providing an answer to a question I consider
to be off topic *provided* it includes a redirection to somewhere more
appropriate for the discussion to be continued.

[...]

A problem with that is that off-topic answers tend to lead to lengthy
off-topic discussions. I've seen too many cases where someone
provides an answer that is, for example, Unix-specific and wrong -- or
that somebody here incorrectly thinks is wrong. (Leaving bad
information uncorrected here just isn't going to happen, whether it's
topical or not.)

If it is done with follow-ups set then by default the replies will go to
a group where it is topical. Although I will admit to having been guilty
of engaging in some of those off topic debates here, so I can see the
problem.

I suggest that a more effective strategy is to encourage the OP to
re-post the question in a more appropriate newsgroup. If I know the
answer, I can respond there, where my answer can be checked by (other)
experts.

Cross-posted with follow-ups set allows for that, although there is risk
of people ignoring the follow-ups.

I'm certainly less inclined to object to such a post than an off-topic
answer that does not also redirect discussion to a more appropriate place.

 

[Jack Klein]

[Discussions of topicality are always topical. Nothing in this article
should be construed as suggesting otherwise - where I say something like
"only <foo> is topical here", this should be read as if it said "only
<foo> and topicality discussions are topical here"!]

One of the (several) bugbears that haunts this group is the issue of
topicality. There appear to be several topicality camps within clc at the
moment, which I'll attempt to categorise as neutrally as I can manage.
I'll assign a name and a letter to each group in an attempt to make it
easier for us all to discuss the various camps.

I haven't read all of the earlier replies yet, and it occurred to me
that I really did not want to do so before I expressed my own
"untainted" first impressions in a reply.

Group P (Purists):

This should be the group's major thrust.

Group N (Neopurists):

While I am a bigger fan of C99 than some here, perhaps including the
OP (hell, almost certainly including the OP), I would certainly be
against this path. Far too limiting, and as at least one reply has
already pointed out, too few C99 compilers available.

Group C (Conservatives): whilst the principal focus should be on standard
C, discussions of particular implementations and extensions for
illustrative purposes are acceptable.

Or even references to code that might not be possible in standard C,
without source, but where the details are irrelevant and the actual
issue is proper C.

Group M (Moderates): As well as standard C, common extensions should be
considered topical (e.g. those that are common in Windows (GUI and
console) and in Unix-a-likes).

I don't like this one, even if there were really a way to come up with
a reasonable definition of "common" that everyone could agree on. That
starts down the slippery slope that almost claimed comp.lang.c++ a
decade or so ago, as you pointed out in another thread.

Group X (eXperimentalists): These folks would like discussions of possible
changes and enhancements to the language to be considered topical.

I actually think this category should be welcomed far more warmly than
it is. There is a real difference between comp.lang.c and comp.std.c
when it comes to discussing possible future additions to the language.

Personally I would not mind seeing serious proposals from qualified
proposers (and that includes Jacob) for extensions to the language. I
think they actually belong in comp.lang.c before they belong anywhere
else.

As members of the C committee have pointed out, proposals for language
extensions and library additions have a much greater chance of being
taken seriously if they have wide support, and even more so if there
is a working implementation.

And I think comp.lang.c is the best place to find out if such
proposals have wide support. Plus feedback provided here could help
the proposer sharpen and fine-tune the proposal.

Then such a proposal could be made in comp.std.c with a pointer to the
discussion threads here.

Group L (Liberals):

No way.

Group A (Anarchists):

And again, no way.

So I'll have the P, with a side order of C and just a pinch of M. With
a little X for dessert.

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://c-faq.com/
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.club.cc.cmu.edu/~ajo/docs/FAQ-acllc.html

 

[Default User]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:16:42 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
[Discussions of topicality are always topical. Nothing in this

article >>> should be construed as suggesting otherwise - where I say
something >>> like "only <foo> is topical here", this should be read
certainly, >> they have nothing to do whatsoever with C -- but
acceptable.

Topicality is always on topic.

As it has to be. If you can't discuss what is and is not topical, there
there will be no off-topic posts.

Topicality discussions are always appropriate on newsgroups, but they
rarely have anything to do with the topic of the groups. If you want
to call messages that do not relate to the topic of a group topical,
go ahead, but I don't think it's a good idea, so I won't.

The usual term is "meta-topical".



Brian

 

[=?iso-2022-kr?q?=1B=24=29CHarald_van_D=0E=29=26=0F]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:16:42 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
[Discussions of topicality are always topical. Nothing in this

article >>> should be construed as suggesting otherwise - where I say
something >>> like "only <foo> is topical here", this should be read as

I consider discussions of topicality as off-topic here --

certainly, >> they have nothing to do whatsoever with C -- but
acceptable.

I'm not sure what happened here, but the quoting does not look right.

As it has to be. If you can't discuss what is and is not topical, there
there will be no off-topic posts.

Topicality doesn't have to be on topic to be able to discuss it, it just
has to be acceptable.

The usual term is "meta-topical".

Thanks, I've never seen it used before, but it seems like a good name to
me. So using that, messages can be topical, meta-topical, or off-topic?
Or do you qualify meta-topical as a subset of topical?

 

[CBFalconer]

One of the (several) bugbears that haunts this group is the issue
of topicality. There appear to be several topicality camps within
clc at the moment, which I'll attempt to categorise as neutrally
as I can manage. I'll assign a name and a letter to each group in
an attempt to make it easier for us all to discuss the various camps. [...]
Group C (Conservatives): whilst the principal focus should be on
standard C, discussions of particular implementations and
extensions for illustrative purposes are acceptable. [...]
Group X (eXperimentalists): These folks would like discussions of
possible changes and enhancements to the language to be considered
topical.

I guess I'm mostly in group C, then, with occasional forays into
group X.

Basically, I think the topic of this group should be "the language
C in the real world", as opposed to "the language C as described
in the standard", which is on-topic in comp.std.c. In the real
world, C is a group of dialects, and while the principal focus
should be on elements of the standard language, I see nothing
wrong in discussing the idiosyncracies of a specific dialect.

The problem with that is that there is no standard of correctness,
and most threads would degenerate into fruitless arguments. Even
more than now. Don't forget the presence of comp.arch.embedded,
many Linux groups, the DJGPP group, many Windoze groups, etc.

 

[Tor Rustad]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

[...]

Currently, I find the volume of posts in c.l.c too high.


Some threads, even if topical, should get killed without reading a
single message there. <gd&r>


--
Tor <torust [at] online [dot] no>

"This option is not intended to be useful; it exists only to satisfy
pedants who would otherwise claim that GNU CC fails to support the ANSI
standard..." -gcc manual

 

[Default User]

Thanks, I've never seen it used before, but it seems like a good name
to me. So using that, messages can be topical, meta-topical, or
off-topic? Or do you qualify meta-topical as a subset of topical?

Wikipedia expresses it pretty well (entry on "meta"):

Meta (from Greek: μετά = "after", "beyond", "with"), is a prefix
used in English in order to indicate a concept which is an abstraction
from another concept, used to complete or add to the latter. The Greek
meta is equivalent to the Latin post.

In epistemology, the prefix meta- is used to mean about (its own
category). For example, metadata are data about data (who has produced
it, when, what format the data are in and so on). Similarly, metamemory
in psychology means an individual's knowledge about whether or not they
would remember something if they concentrated on recalling it.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta>



So "metatopical" could be considered topicality about topicality.



Brian

 

[Default User]

Flash Gordon wrote:

Cross-posted with follow-ups set allows for that, although there is
risk of people ignoring the follow-ups.

I'm certainly less inclined to object to such a post than an
off-topic answer that does not also redirect discussion to a more
appropriate place.

I generally don't have any problem with that method. I dislike when
people answer it here, then set follow-ups to the new group.



Brian

 

[Peter J. Holzer]

The problem with that is that there is no standard of correctness,

Where a standard of correctness is needed, conformance to C90 or C99 can
be used.

hp

 

[Army1987]

One of the (several) bugbears that haunts this group is the issue of
topicality. There appear to be several topicality camps within clc at the
moment, which I'll attempt to categorise as neutrally as I can manage.
I'll assign a name and a letter to each group in an attempt to make it
easier for us all to discuss the various camps.

Group P (Purists): only code that can be written entirely in K&R C, C90, or
C99 is topical here; where functions or symbols that are not defined by
the Standard are mentioned, the source code should be available, at least
in principle, and that source code should be written entirely in one of
the above "standard dialects". Citations from K&R, from either of the
ISO/IEC 9899 documents, or from drafts are all acceptable.

That's a bit too extreme, but if we replace the part after the
semicolon with "functions or symbols not defined by the Standard
can be mentioned only if their meaning is either self-evident or
clearly explained by the poster, and if the "core" of the matter
being discussed doesn't lie in them." it would be perfectly
reasonable.

Group N (Neopurists): only code that can be written entirely in the latest
version of C is topical here; where functions or symbols that are not
defined by the Standard are mentioned, the source code should be
available, at least in principle, and that source code should be written
entirely in C99. Drafts of the Standard don't count, and any citation from
a draft is off-topic.

The silliest thing about this, excluding the scarce availability
of C99 compilers, is that, since TC1, 2 and 3 have been accepted,
n1256 accurately reflects the *current* state of the Standard,
while the Real Thing is outdated.

Group C (Conservatives): whilst the principal focus should be on standard
C, discussions of particular implementations and extensions for
illustrative purposes are acceptable.

Perfectly reasonable. Writing "assuming CHAR_BIT is 8 and we're
using the ASCII charset" shouldn't make a post OT, and neither
should "For example, on Unix-like systems..." as long as it is
really just an example.

Group M (Moderates): As well as standard C, common extensions should be
considered topical (e.g. those that are common in Windows (GUI and
console) and in Unix-a-likes).

There already are NGs for these, right?

Group X (eXperimentalists): These folks would like discussions of
possible changes and enhancements to the language to be considered
topical.

If they come across in a discussion about C-as-is, and the crux of
the matter doesn't become C-as-it-could-be, OK, but comp.std.c is
out there for a reason, isn't it?

Group L (Liberals): Anything written in a vaguely C-like syntax or in a
language based on C is topical (including C++, Objective-C, Java, and
C#). Ya kiddin'?
Group A (Anarchists): Anything and everything is topical, including
device drivers, Shrek, CD marker pens, jokes about viola players, and
the Metropolitan District of South Humberside.

Well, no, but how comes that subthreads about the sign of complex
numbers or quantum physics survive much longer than any thread
starting with a mention of a POSIX function?

At present, the majority of regular contributors fall into group P, or
so it seems to me, but all the other groups are represented here to a
greater or lesser degree.

Some fall into more than one camp - for example, at least one person
(who will remain nameless!) appears to be both a Neopurist and a Liberal
(or possibly a Moderate), despite the apparent contradiction between
these positions.

When deciding what is topical and what is not, we should remember that
comp.lang.c is *not* the only newsgroup in town. There are newsgroups
for discussing the language definition, POSIX, Windows, and individual
implementations. On the other hand, it cannot be denied that some people
gravitate towards comp.lang.c even though their discussion subject bears
little or no relation to standard C. Should we be sending these folks
on, or should we be answering their questions here?

I have carefully refrained from putting forward my own opinion, partly
because I should imagine that just about everyone who reads this already
knows what it is, and partly because I don't want this thread to get
bogged down until people have had a chance to think about the issues for
themselves.

Any topicality stance is bound to have advantages *and* disadvantages.
So please think carefully before weighing in too heavily in favour of a
particular stance!

Using common sense should in theory be a more accurate way to
decide what's topical than clause 1 of ISO/IEC 9899:1999, at
least for people who have some and know how to use it. Too bad
that not everybody does. ;-)

 

[Richard Tobin]

Meta (from Greek: [...] = "after", "beyond", "with"), is a prefix
used in English in order to indicate a concept which is an abstraction
from another concept, used to complete or add to the latter. The Greek
meta is equivalent to the Latin post.

The original "meta-" word of this kind is metaphysics, which was the
name given to one of Aristotle's works. In that case, the meaning is
said to be "after", in that the work was taught after Aristotle's
"Physics".

The relation between the subject matter of Aristotle's Physics and
Metaphysics ("natural philosophy" and "ontological philosophy") has
probably influenced the use of the prefix in English as much as
meaning of the Greek prefix itself has.

-- Richard

 

[Chris Hills]

On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 13:16:42 +0000, Richard Heathfield wrote:
The silliest thing about this, excluding the scarce availability
of C99 compilers, is that, since TC1, 2 and 3 have been accepted,
n1256 accurately reflects the *current* state of the Standard,
while the Real Thing is outdated.

I agree. However C99 in general has not been implemented by the
industry. It is a mess.

I would put my self here.

There already are NGs for these, right?

Yes but.... This NG should act as a place where C can be discussed. With
the current Net Nannies you cant, as some one said ask about spawn
because it is not standard. The others that did constructively discuss
the topic with the OP said you really need something like "system()" SO
after a little more cross platform discussion he was then pointed in to
an NG for specific in depth discussion. Which wasn't a Unix one where he
might have been sent for "spawn" thus everyone learns and more
importantly people get more of an idea about what is and is not portable
to their system. This is important as very few use just pure ISO C.

Ya kiddin'?

I hope so..... That said we have occasionally had discussions that are
about C and C++ the trouble is the Net Nannies change the follow ups on
anything that mentions C++ (it is worse than Vampires and holy water
so on more than one occasion a cross language discussion has been split
(often silently) and developed in to a C discussion on this NG and a
C-C++ discussion on the C++ NG where more sane and balanced people lurk.

Well, no, but how comes that subthreads about the sign of complex
numbers or quantum physics survive much longer than any thread
starting with a mention of a POSIX function?

It is good to socialise some times.

It depends. Some discussions eg the spawn/system discussion up to the
point where it starts to get in depth on platform specifics would be
useful here. Some things should politely be set to other NG's but not
with the refrain "we only discuss STD C here" We don't we discuss C.

 

[CBFalconer]

Where a standard of correctness is needed, conformance to C90 or
C99 can be used.

Oh? You mean you recommend incorrect code?

 

[Richard]

I agree. However C99 in general has not been implemented by the
industry. It is a mess.


I would put my self here.

Of course they should. "comp.lang.c". These extension should be
discussed in the context of ways of doing it in Standards compliant C. I
sometimes wonder what, if any, real systems the net nannys use and just
how different architectures their code is really ported to. Ditto for
subjects like asking programmers here their favorite tools, cross
platform or not, for making the most of the C programming language.

Yes but.... This NG should act as a place where C can be
discussed. With the current Net Nannies you cant, as some one said ask
about spawn because it is not standard. The others that did
constructively discuss the topic with the OP said you really need
something like "system()" SO after a little more cross platform
discussion he was then pointed in to an NG for specific in depth
discussion. Which wasn't a Unix one where he might have been sent for
"spawn" thus everyone learns and more importantly people get more of
an idea about what is and is not portable to their system. This is
important as very few use just pure ISO C.

And common sense.

I hope so..... That said we have occasionally had discussions that are
about C and C++ the trouble is the Net Nannies change the follow ups
on anything that mentions C++ (it is worse than Vampires and holy
water

I think I know why. The net nannies rarely seem to have any real world
experience. They spend hours learning the standard in order to play one
upsmanship.

so on more than one occasion a cross language discussion has been
split (often silently) and developed in to a C discussion on this NG
and a C-C++ discussion on the C++ NG where more sane and balanced
people lurk.

No two ways. I find the C++ group much more reasonable than CBF and
friends.

It is good to socialise some times.


It depends. Some discussions eg the spawn/system discussion up to
the point where it starts to get in depth on platform specifics would
be useful here. Some things should politely be set to other NG's but
not with the refrain "we only discuss STD C here" We don't we
discuss C.

Good post. Balanced. Reasonable. Common sense.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

It depends. Some discussions eg the spawn/system discussion up to the
point where it starts to get in depth on platform specifics would be
useful here. Some things should politely be set to other NG's but not
with the refrain "we only discuss STD C here" We don't we discuss C.

Keep in mind that in the minds of the assholes^wnetNannies^wregulars
here, these are one and the same thing. Literally one-for-one
substitutions for each other.

Sane people, of course, realize otherwise.

 

[Kenny McCormack]

No two ways. I find the C++ group much more reasonable than CBF and
friends.

Yes, CBF really is a piece of work. But RH and KT are not far behind,
albeit in their own ways.

 

[Richard]

Yes, CBF really is a piece of work. But RH and KT are not far behind,
albeit in their own ways.

No. KT is rigid but he is here for a reason - to spread the word on
standards compliant C. RH on the other hand seems to be here to
advertise how clever he is at every opportunity - two very different
things.

 

[Chris Hills]

I think I know why. The net nannies rarely seem to have any real world
experience. They spend hours learning the standard in order to play one
upsmanship.

I have seen far too much of this pedantry and one upmanship....
People pedantry quoting chapter and verse in DRAFT UN-ISSUED documents
(because it is "close enough") but ignoring common real world use of the
language

No two ways. I find the C++ group much more reasonable than CBF and
friends.

The problem was the more useful part of the discussion on c and C++ was
on the C++ group as it had silently disappeared from the C NG. Many on
the C group would not have seen this due to the unilateral censorship by
the Net Nannies.

Good post. Balanced. Reasonable. Common sense.

Thanks. However you won't find "Common Sense" in Standard C

 

[Peter J. Holzer]

Oh? You mean you recommend incorrect code?

Where did I write anything about recommending code? The statement you
were responding to was (as you can still read above):

I see nothing wrong in discussing the idiosyncracies of a specific
dialect.

hp