D
Dik T. Winter
Note the above, and see that when you read a later follow-up by Jacob you
will find that Richard is right.
will find that Richard is right.
K
Keith Thompson
Chris McDonald said:
A Google search for
jacob nava "lcc-win"
does not, as far as I can tell, lead to a download site for the
C90-compliant version. Neither of the two main download sites for
lcc-win appears to mention the C90-compliant version.
B
bartc
Keith Thompson said:
I suspect it might just be bundled with the normal lccwin32 distribution.
K
Keith Thompson
Keith Thompson said:
jacob, I regret that this simple question led to a flame war.
Everyone else: Here's an idea. If poster A asks a question
directed at poster B, particularly if it's a question that only
poster B is in a position to answer definitively, let's sit back
for a while and give poster B a chance to answer it before jumping
in with speculation about how poster B *might* respond given his
past history and/or how we think he *should* respond.
jacob, I'm still interested in knowing what "popular demand" you're
referring to. I do have some thoughts about what you might mean,
but I'll keep them to myself until I see what you have to say.
You've posted one response in this thread, but it didn't seem to be
an answer to my question; if it was intended to be, please say so.
If the phrase "Due to popular demand" wasn't meant to be taken
seriously, I'd be interested in knowing that as well.
J
jameskuyper
jacob said:
True. But that was simply a statement of fact, not a request "that lcc-
win32 be made to conform with C90". I don't believe that anyone other
than one nutcase has ever given you such a request. Whether or not
your compiler should conform with C is purely your own concern. My own
interest in the issue has solely been about the accuracy of
conformance claims.
K
Kenny McCormack
What you say is, on the surface, true. However, no one really believes it.
No one seriously believes that when Dicky talks to (or, more likely, about)
Jacob, there is any intent other than character assasination.
Points:
1) Teabag is almost certainly a Dicky sock puppet.
2) I will grant that I don't believe for a second (nor should
anyone so believe) that Dicky and/or Kiki (hereinafter: DK)
really give a hoot whether or not Jacob's compiler complies with
any standard. It's not like either one of them is ever going to
use it. I.e., I don't see why anyone outside of Jacob's
userbase should give a hoot. I also don't see why anyone inside
of Jacob's userbase should care either - but that is another
thread.
3) However, that said, it is then hard to interpret their constant
nagging about his supposed non-compliance as anything other than
bullying and/or character assasination. Otherwise, why should
they care? Why should they bother?
4) I think Jacob is a real sucker for giving them endless
opportunities to shit upon him. I don't understand why he
bothers posting here.
J
jacob navia
bartc a écrit :
Exactly.
Exactly.
J
jacob navia
Kenny McCormack a écrit :
Yes, I think sometimes I should stop this.
But some other times, when I am feeling optimistic, I think
that there are a lot of people that read this forum without
participating.
I receive a lot of mails of people that tell me in private that
they do not think like the "regulars" group.
So, I try to make my viewpoint continue. There is NO reason to
leave this group and let the "regulars" go on destroying this fourm.
Yes, I think sometimes I should stop this.
But some other times, when I am feeling optimistic, I think
that there are a lot of people that read this forum without
participating.
I receive a lot of mails of people that tell me in private that
they do not think like the "regulars" group.
So, I try to make my viewpoint continue. There is NO reason to
leave this group and let the "regulars" go on destroying this fourm.
K
Keith Thompson
jacob navia said:
Ok, that makes sense. It would have been helpful if you'd mentioned
that in your announcement and/or on the web page.
K
Kenny McCormack
Keith Thompson said:
Bitch and moan.
Bitch and moan.
Bitch and moan.
R
Rui Maciel
jacob said:
It's a shame that some compiler authors feel the need to comply to standards not due to any honorable
motives, such as the need to ensure interoperability and the satisfaction of providing a tool that behaves
according to the user's expectations, but just out of plain spite. Do you actually believe that all this
passive aggressiveness does anyone or anything any good?
Rui Maciel
J
jacob navia
Rui Maciel a écrit :
If heathfield complains that mcc-win does not conform to C90, and I
develop a version of lcc-win that does complain 100%, I am doing
it because of "spite" and "passive aggressiveness".
And how do you arrive at this stupidity?
"Passive aggressiveness" is a new term. Obviously I did not insult
anyone, nor did I do anyone any harm. That is why I am a "passive
aggressor" !!!
Well, I will frame your post in my gallery.
If heathfield complains that mcc-win does not conform to C90, and I
develop a version of lcc-win that does complain 100%, I am doing
it because of "spite" and "passive aggressiveness".
And how do you arrive at this stupidity?
"Passive aggressiveness" is a new term. Obviously I did not insult
anyone, nor did I do anyone any harm. That is why I am a "passive
aggressor" !!!
Well, I will frame your post in my gallery.
R
Rui Maciel
jacob said:
It appears that you don't quite remember or aren't aware of what you have been posting.
Although your poor judgment leads you to believe it's a suitable answer, you accomplish absolutely nothing
by trying to label comments you don't enjoy as being "stupid".
It may be a new term to you but it's pretty much common knowledge. Please browse through the following
article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive–aggressive_behavior
This is a very odd statement for two separate reasons. The first one is that in my reply I didn't accused
you of insulting anyone, which means your statement is unwarranted. The second is that in the exact same
post you make that statement (in fact, in the preceding sentence) you label something you didn't approved
as being "stupidity", which means you couldn't write two sentences in a row without contradicting yourself.
Please read the article I've pointed out and then spend a couple of minutes reflecting on what you've been
posting.
Well, I will frame your post in my gallery.
If that makes you happy then please be my guest.
Rui Maciel
F
Friedrich Dominicus
w> It's a shame that some compiler authors feel the need to comply to standards not due to any honorable
anything good?
Do you feel flaming around on every other quiestion does anyone
anything good?
K
Kenny McCormack
Yes. It satisfies various psycho-sexual needs of theirs.
(At least that's the best I can figure on it...)
K
Kenny McCormack
Well put.
K
Keith Thompson
Malcolm McLean said:
It is not a statement of fact.
First, I dispute the accuracy of the phrase "widely hated".
There are some people who dislike him, but I believe there are more
who do not. I don't know that anyone actually hates him, though
perhaps there are some who do. We could have a lengthy argument
about the exact meanings of "widely" and "hated", and it would never
reach any meaningful conclusion, so let's not. The phrase is vague,
and to my understanding of its meaning, it is false.
Second, "pomposity of style" is a matter of opinion, not of fact.
I do not dispute that some people find his style pompous, but again,
there is no object standard for pomposity.
As for your odd claim that this is "not an attack", you deliberately
chose words that would normally be considered insulting. I suppose
you did so for the purpose of making a point. Since your point is
wrong, I won't comment further on whether it's an attack.
On the other hand, lcc-win32's lack of a diagnostic for // comments
quite simply does render it non-conforming to C90. This is not
merely an opinion, it is a simple fact about which there can, as far
as I can tell, be no reasonable disagreement. I could cite several
sections of the C90 standard which, taken together, demonstrate
that a conforming C90 compiler must issue a diagnostic for a //
comment (except in the rare and contrived cases where a C99 //
comment is legal, but not a comment, in C90), but I don't think
that's actually necessary.
So here are the facts.
Prior to jacob's recent announcement of a C90-conforming version of
lcc-win32, lcc-win32 did not diagnose // comments, and therefore did
not conform to the C90 standard. (Note that "conform" is synonymous
to "fully conform".) Richard pointed this out on several occasions.
Richard has never, as far as I recall, suggested that lcc-win32
*should* conform to C90.
This. Is. Not. An. Attack.
So how are your remarks relevant to this discussion?
N
Nick Keighley
well put
K
Keith Thompson
Richard Heathfield said:
I hope you're right, but the headers seem to be consistent with at
least one of Malcolm's previous articles. I'll reserve judgement
until Malcolm comments.
T
Tim Rentsch
Dik T. Winter said:
You're reading something into the posting that it doesn't say.
It may be that Jacob took Richard's statement as a request, and
it may be that he didn't, but certainly his posting doesn't say
that he took it as a request. So it isn't clear just who is
confused in this instance.