Asking if elements in struct arre zero

[Richard Heathfield]

Thanks,

That's quite all right.

check out this one too:

"Don't get involved in flame wars. Neither post nor respond to incendiary
material."

I have not posted any incendiary material in this thread. If you think I
have breached this guideline, it can only be because you think that /your/
material is incendiary. If so, then you have breached the guideline
yourself. I, however, have not.

You're in no position to tell me not to top-post, clearly.

I have *asked* you not to top-post. There is a difference between asking and
telling.

And this is
not recognition of those rules as authority.

It appears from what you say that the only authority you recognise (and
expect us to recognise) is you.

I already said that I am perfectly capable of quoting, when I think it's
more clear. I top-post when that's more clear.

I disagree that putting the response before the stimulus is ever "more
clear".

<newsreader "ergonomics" point dealt with elsethread, so I've snipped it
here>

Just like HTML e-mail used to be an ungodly annoyance, it is coming into
acceptance because of greater disk space, bandwidth, and more e-mail
clients
support it. Oh times they change.

HTML e-mail remains an ungodly annoyance. Oh times they stay the same.

Apparently you don't really understand how Usenet works.

Well, you certainly don't, if you think you can make unsupported and indeed
patently false claims in this newsgroup without being challenged.

No shit. I never said that I owned the group. You're the ones telling ME
what to do.

I have /asked/ you to stop top-posting. If you wish to be taken seriously in
this newsgroup (and it appears that you don't), it would be wise to follow
the accepted conventions of the group.

I'm not telling you to do anything. I simply suggest that if
you're so keen on following netiquette, then killfile me already.

But what if you were to start dispensing language advice? If you were in
every regular contributor's killfile, who would correct your errors?

 

[Guest]

Since you do not wish to killfile various people in the group, I would
recommend just ignoring them and ending this thread.

Their only desire at this point is to continue baiting you. They are not
interested in any genuine or logical discussion. They are only posting
because they believe it makes you say funny things.

--

 

[Noah Roberts]

Obviously, it is a convention of this newsgroup to not top-post. Just
like it is convention to not bring crying babies into the movie theater.
It doesn't mean it doesn't ever happen, but when it does, the convention
breaker will get complaints.

Because you can't killfile a baby or its parent that won't step out
without going to prison for a very long time. Therefor all that can be
done is complain and hope the theater personell do something.

We have it so easy here.

NR

 

[Default User]

Their only desire at this point is to continue baiting you. They are not
interested in any genuine or logical discussion. They are only posting
because they believe it makes you say funny things.

Ah, another troll. Like your buddy Roose, you go:


*plonk*




Brian Rodenborn

 

[Mark McIntyre]

do it sometimes, as I already said. But there are valid reasons for
top-posting as well, which I already listed.

Unfortunately the reasons were IMO invalid.

And that is why I get pissed
when people complain about ME top-posting.

people complain because your posts are usually unreadable gibberish
without resorting to scrollinh up and down to read what you failed to
snip, or diving off to google to read the fscking archives. When you
stop posting so antisocially, people will stop complaining.

The bottom line is that it is personal preference, and UseNet is public, so
I have the right to follow my preference.

Public doesn't mean "I can do what I like and the h*ll with everyone
else". It means "I have to behave according to the accepted practices
of the society I'm in". In the Real World (tm) you do'nt p*ss in
public, or attack children with mallets and your private parts. In CLC
you don't top post.

Just like everyone has the right
to post their f*cking stupid sigs after every goddamn message.

Astonishing as it may seem, sigs are accepted by RFC.

However, I am less pissed now than amused by the fact that I've caused a
collective apoplexy in comp.lang.c, over something as stupid as top-posting.

Well stop doing it.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Well, I looked in my outlook folder, and it's 26 megs, for about 40
newsgroups from two news servers, including a several binary groups.

*shrug* PER DAY, headers alone take up about 70MB for me, ie a weeks
worth is half a gig. You can imagine how much space headers+bodies
would take up, not to mention the retention needed to keep up with
some threads.

That's because it only downloads the headers at first.

which are useless if you want to retain the threading, no?

THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN TELLING YOU TO DO, IDIOT, SO FUCKING DO IT ALREADY.

You misunderstand. Other people will plonk you, not me.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

No, I don't think he is.

You don't think I am *what*? If you would post properly, we'd know
what you were talking about?

In any case, it's not relevant if he's talking about running a news server.
Agreed.

I said that it is easy to track a thread even
without quoting, if you have a proper newsreader which sorts by thread. He
said that that isn't possible because you would have to store too many
messages on your machine. I say, not really, they're on the server.

FWIW few servers these days retain even plain text for more than a few
days. And even if they did, so what? I need to track down what roose
said last week, so I have to go off to some server to get it, when if
he'd retained context in the first place, he'd have saved everyone
lots of strife.

There is no disk space issue with tracking messages backward by thread, in
order to follow a conversation without quoting.

Yes there is.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Says who? There is no President of UseNet.

Says the usnet guidelines at usenet.org, plus the readme. first for
this and many other groups, plus common sense. Are you clinically
thick?

That is not a good enough reason for me.

Then you're behaving like an antisocial cretin who deserves to be
ostracised by your fellows.

The English language is a standard
as well, but it changes with time and de facto rules evolve. Old rules get
broken. Same thing with UseNet. It has changed over time to include
top-posting as acceptable.

So you've tried here, and failed, much like Noah Webster failed to get
some English words respelled to suit his idiosyncracies. Learn a
lesson from this.

I am no more a guest than you are. I probably posted here in 1995,

Frankly, I don't believe you. A google reference please, with proof
that its you..

well before most people here.

Thats very unlikely, if you restrict yourself to regulars.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

The new circumstances are that most people use different newsreaders than
they did 10 years ago. Back in the day, the ergonomics of newsreaders
demanded that you quote. Now they don't, as there are zillions of free
newsreaders that let you track threads quite easily.

Fortunately nobody gives a sh*t what you think about the ergonomics of
newsreaders changing everything. You're talking bullshit, evidently
based on exceptionally limited experience of possibly the world's
most poorly designed newsreader. Threading newsreaders have been
around for decades, but are irrelevant to the actual point.

Just like HTML e-mail used to be an ungodly annoyance, it is coming into
acceptance because of greater disk space, bandwidth, and more e-mail clients
support it.

And the opportunity to spread viruses, trojans and generally irritate
the crap out of people. Again you're wrong.

Apparently you don't really understand how Usenet works.

Apparently you're unable to back up your wild claim.

 

[Peter Pichler]

ObC: So, what is the right way to print the value of a variable of type
int32_t? The best I can think of is:

int32_t i = 42;
printf("%jd\n", (intmax_t)i);

Is there a better way?

Isn't long guaranteed to be at least 32 bits wide? You can use

printf("%ld\n", (long)i);

 

[Peter Pichler]

He has not, but I am now:

*PLONK!*

No, I killfile you when you start telling people wrong C answers.

That would be a bad idea, wrong answers need to be corrected.
Ignorant idiots, OTOH, may be happily plonked

Right now you're just an annoying idiot.

I think everybody agrees on that.

 

[Noah Roberts]

Yes there is.

You know, I think Roose, and maybe others, misses the point entirely.
The point isn't disk space usage, or being able to backtrack a message
because most of the time it is possible. The point is the irritation
caused by reading something like this:

"I don't see that as a benefit."

And then going "WTF is he talking about?" You begin looking for clues,
because for some reason you give a ****. You read the post to which he
is replying, either by reading below the top-post or backtracking the
thread, and see several things to which he could be refering.

Even if I can decern exactly what he is refering to after minor research
I am already pissed off because I had to do that research. Why should I
have to go hunting for context?! In my opinion it is very pretentious
to think that you have the right to waste my time like that. What arogance!

Also highly irritating is something like this:

<hypoquote>
Maybe someday he will get it...

> blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
> blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
> blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
> blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
> blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
> blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
> blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
> blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
> blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
> blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
> blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
> blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
> blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah

<hypoquote cut short>

And at first you go "Why the hell did he reply, quote the entire text,
and say nothing?"

I hate top posting, I am glad I killfiled this jerk. Not only did he
say "I don't want you to listen to a damn thing I say" when he top
posted, not only did you say "**** you" to a very well layed out answer
and polite request to be polite, but finally he had the gaul to dare me
to killfile him...bye! The rest of you still listening to his clap trap
would do good to follow those of us that saw him for the turd he is
right off and flush.

 

[Roose]

Thanks, but at this point, it's just entertainment. No big deal. Pretty
much half the newsgroup has be vehemently replying to this thread, so I'll
take that as a license to continue. But you're right that I would have got
bored if they stopped replying.

 

[Roose]

"Don't get involved in flame wars. Neither post nor respond to
incendiary

I have not posted any incendiary material in this thread.

That's debatable, but what's not debatable is that you consider my posts to
be incendiary, and you have replied to them. Therefore you have violated
your precious RFC.

I have *asked* you not to top-post. There is a difference between asking and
telling.

Then you are in no position to ask me not to top-post, since you don't
follow netiquette yourself.

It appears from what you say that the only authority you recognise (and
expect us to recognise) is you.

That's true on Usenet, because by its design it admits no authority.
Whether this design is a mistake is a separate issue. If it were a private
group, I would abide by its rules or simply not participate. And in fact I
do participate in a few web forums and abide by their rules.

I disagree that putting the response before the stimulus is ever "more
clear".

I am well-aware of that, as are you that I disagree.

The issue is that you should either respect my preference for top-posting,
or killfile me because you consider me a troll. Or at least remain agnostic
and stop contributing to a thread that is off-topic (which is also proper
netiquette). You have failed to do any of these things.

Note that if you continue to show inability to follow the logic of a basic
argument, then I might get so bored that I would stop. That would
accomplish the same goal as well, so you can give that a try.

So far though you've distinguished yourself from James Hu and Mark McIntyre,
who aren't really worth responding to. Mr. Hu is just a fucking dolt who
sounds like a 12-year-old with a thesaurus. And Mr. McIntyre has bored me
with his inability to grasp basic ideas and the sheer volume of posts.

HTML e-mail remains an ungodly annoyance. Oh times they stay the same.

The point is not personal preference. I can think of many reasons as well
why it's annoying. However I'm saying that it is coming into common usage
(or has already). Therefore the ever-changing Internet community has given
de facto approval to its use. There is no central authority to decide
whether its valid or not. So you can either live with it like I do and
appreciate some benefits of it, or you can drive your blood pressure through
the roof being pissed about it.

Well, you certainly don't, if you think you can make unsupported and indeed
patently false claims in this newsgroup without being challenged.

Prove that I did not post here. If you understood how Usenet works, you
would not be able to say that my claim is false.

I used to post under my real name, and no I'm not going to post it for the
group or give you a google link. I can change my name any time by going
into a dialog box in my newsreader. But so far I haven't, because otherwise
you wouldn't be able to killfile me, which I invite you to do.

But what if you were to start dispensing language advice? If you were in
every regular contributor's killfile, who would correct your errors?

That's pretty lame. A transparent facade for your control problems.

Anyway, there are OBVIOUSLY plenty of people who haven't killfiled me, so
you can -- safe with the knowledge that no incorrect answers will go
unnoticed.

Roose

 

[Roose]

However, I am less pissed now than amused by the fact that I've caused a

top-posting.

Well stop doing it.

This seems unlikely, given the size this thread has grown to.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

That's debatable,

Then debate it. Please cite some material that I have posted to this thread
which could reasonably be considered by an impartial observer to be
incendiary.

but what's not debatable is that you consider my posts
to be incendiary,

Do you have any evidence to back up your belief that you have irrefutable
knowledge of what I do and do not consider to be incendiary?

and you have replied to them. Therefore you have violated
your precious RFC.

Actually, I haven't.

Then you are in no position to ask me not to top-post, since you don't
follow netiquette yourself.

If I have breached netiquette, I will apologise to you for that, but I don't
believe that I have. Your /belief/ in such a breach does not actually
/constitute/ a breach on my part.

That's true on Usenet, because by its design it admits no authority.

If you do not recognise, for example, the authority of truth, of competence,
or of convention, then I see little chance of this discussion leading to
any positive outcome.

The issue is that you should either respect my preference for top-posting,
or killfile me because you consider me a troll.

I disagree. The issue is whether you wish to be taken seriously on this
newsgroup, which values its conventions highly, and for good reason. I
don't think you're a troll, but I do think you have misunderstood this
newsgroup.

Or at least remain
agnostic

Lit "unknowing". You may consider that to be a desirable state. I do not.

The point is not personal preference. I can think of many reasons as well
why it's annoying. However I'm saying that it is coming into common usage
(or has already). Therefore the ever-changing Internet community has
given
de facto approval to its use. There is no central authority to decide
whether its valid or not. So you can either live with it like I do and
appreciate some benefits of it, or you can drive your blood pressure
through the roof being pissed about it.

Or you can make it clear to those who correspond with you that you prefer to
have text email. That is what I do.

Prove that I did not post here. If you understood how Usenet works, you
would not be able to say that my claim is false.

You, Roose, have posted to this newsgroup in exactly one thread - this one.
My supporting evidence is the Google archive.

Are you claiming that Google has lost your articles?

I used to post under my real name

I don't believe you.

<snip>

 

[Richard Heathfield]

He has not, but I am now:

*PLONK!*


That would be a bad idea, wrong answers need to be corrected.
Ignorant idiots, OTOH, may be happily plonked

Alas, Roose has started dispensing C "advice".

 

[Roose]

That's debatable,

Then debate it. Please cite some material that I have posted to this thread
which could reasonably be considered by an impartial observer to be
incendiary.

You posted repeated messages that told me not to top-post, when clearly you
had no expectation that I would. You were just bugging me for the sake of
replying, having the last word. Not that incendiary, and not unwelcome from
me, I admit, but to a strict netiquette nerd, they would definitely be
considered unnecessary.

Do you have any evidence to back up your belief that you have irrefutable
knowledge of what I do and do not consider to be incendiary?

Well, at least you *said* so if you don't believe so, or maybe that was one
of the others in the indistinguishable mass of anal-retentive geeks. Can't
really tell.

If you don't think any of my past message was incendiary, then that last
line certainly was. So if you reply to this, then you're replying to
incendiary material.

If you do not recognise, for example, the authority of truth, of competence,
or of convention, then I see little chance of this discussion leading to
any positive outcome.

I think that is clear, regardless of whether I recognize those authorities.
: )

I disagree. The issue is whether you wish to be taken seriously on this
newsgroup, which values its conventions highly, and for good reason. I
don't think you're a troll, but I do think you have misunderstood this
newsgroup.

Who brought up that issue? I didn't. I am fine just having some fun.
Apparently people do take me seriously, since they've attempted (poorly) to
logically refute my arguments, and have not killfiled me, which you would do
with someone you don't take seriously.

You, Roose, have posted to this newsgroup in exactly one thread - this one.
My supporting evidence is the Google archive.

Are you claiming that Google has lost your articles?

Jesus Christ. I think this is like the 3rd time I've explained this. Let's
go back to the basics.

There is the real world, and then there is the Internet. In the real world,
there is a person that exists. On the Internet, that person can have AS
MANY USENET IDENTITIES AS HE WISHES. It's fascinating, I know.

Therefore, the fact that "Roose" (NOT my real name, BTW) only appears in
certain threads, does not mean that I (a real person) have never posted in
other threads.

You're making this way too easy for me.

 

[Roose]

Alas, Roose has started dispensing C "advice".

Honestly. In all seriousness.

Do you think the OP (in the interview question thread) wants to hear what I
told him, or what you guys told him? Really. Just a reality check here. I
want to know what kind of people I'm dealing with here.

 

[James Hu]

Honestly. In all seriousness.

Do you think the OP (in the interview question thread) wants to hear
what I told him, or what you guys told him? Really. Just a reality
check here. I want to know what kind of people I'm dealing with here.

If I asked a technical question looking for an answer, I would rather
be told the correct answer, instead of being told what I wanted to
hear.

And then, I apply the golden rule.

-- James