avg error

[Morris Keesan]

If you told a computer to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and
wrote "then put the lid of the peanut butter on the bread", it would
put the lid of the peanut butter on the bread, and you'd post to Usenet
saying "my sandwich came out all plasticy".

I see your problem. You're using the wrong kind of peanut butter. With
my implementation, the sandwich comes out all metallic.

 

[Nick Keighley]

    There is a problem in the return statement. The / is wrong. From there I
have no idea. Perhaps parenthesis are needed.

I know people have actually told you what the problem is, but
consider.

What does the error message *say*? Compiler writers may use technical
language but they don't try to obscure the reason for the error from
you.
Assume the writers of the compiler are intelligent and better informed
than
you about the C langauge. But that they are not malicious.

So, what did the error message actually say?

 

[Dik T. Winter]

> I wonder what the record is for the longest continuously active troll
> on c.l.c. Or on any single newsgroup. Or maybe Usenet as a whole.

Archimedes Plutonium.

 

[user923005]

I think we need to make a distinction between trolling, and the sad
consequences of mental illness.  Archimedes Plutonium isn't a troll,
he's a unfortunately deluded man who doesn't get the help he clearly
needs.

I think we need to differentiate between the two kinds of trolling.
1. Something genuinely funny, intended to cause a long chain of
hilarity (e.g. Kibo)
2. The dark, sad kind (99% of trolls)
3. The off the wall kind that fails either category
I think there is nothing wrong with those who engage in #1, and there
is always something wrong with those who engage in #2. Usually, with
category #3, it's mavericks like Abian, who are hard to categorize.

 

[Default User]

Barry Schwarz wrote:

Bill's brain is working perfectly. He has been successfully trolling
this newsgroup for years and never fails to reel in someone. Even
many who have sworn off responding still take the bait.

I tend to agree with this, although there's at least a kernel of doubt.
However, I don't think it matters. Even if it's not a troll, Bill has
supposedly been learn C since at least as far back as 1992 (I think
longer, but that's the earliest Google will give me). If he's made no
more progress than this, he's not ever going to get anywhere. It
doesn't matter how much effort people put into it.

Back 1-1/2 years ago, I gave it my shot. Part of what I said was that
he had to look up every function in some source before using it.
Numerous others have said the same to him. He STILL doesn't do that.

Troll/unteachable, who cares? The group just needs to stop replying.



Brian

 

[user923005]

I tend to agree with this, although there's at least a kernel of doubt.
However, I don't think it matters. Even if it's not a troll, Bill has
supposedly been learn C since at least as far back as 1992 (I think
longer, but that's the earliest Google will give me). If he's made no
more progress than this, he's not ever going to get anywhere. It
doesn't matter how much effort people put into it.

Back 1-1/2 years ago, I gave it my shot. Part of what I said was that
he had to look up every function in some source before using it.
Numerous others have said the same to him. He STILL doesn't do that.

Troll/unteachable, who cares? The group just needs to stop replying.

Whether Bill learns or not is irrelevant to me.
He asks interesting questions. Sometimes I learn things by exploring
answers for them (not this one in particular, but other questions have
been most intriguing).
I view USENET not as some sort of free consulting offered to students,
but as a forum for examination of questions.
It's not really important if the OP ever understands the answer fully
(but certainly a bonus if they do).

IMO-YMMV.

Other trolls have no redeeming social value and it's not worth the
bother answering their questions. But Bill (even if he is genuinely
trolling) asks questions that are worth answering.

 

[Default User]

Whether Bill learns or not is irrelevant to me.
He asks interesting questions.

IMO-YMMV.

Indeed. Usually I find them to be dumb questions, based on him not
knowing (or pretending not to know) basic concepts and/or not using
functions correctly.

Other trolls have no redeeming social value and it's not worth the
bother answering their questions.

I would agree there.

But Bill (even if he is genuinely
trolling) asks questions that are worth answering.

Obviously, not my view of things.




Brian

 

[Richard Bos]

I have the feeling that you repeat yourself ;-)

Perhaps, but for once Mr. navia and I are one hundred percent in
agreement.

All you who answer Bill's questions: you are _not_ helping him. He may
think you are, and you may believe you are, but what you are, in cold
hard fact, doing is reinforce his problems.

Richard

 

[Ben Bacarisse]

Perhaps, but for once Mr. navia and I are one hundred percent in
agreement.

All you who answer Bill's questions: you are _not_ helping him. He may
think you are, and you may believe you are, but what you are, in cold
hard fact, doing is reinforce his problems.

You can't determine the effect or the intent of either the original
poster or of the people who reply. Presuming to just adds to the
noise.

As for the well-being of the group, the problem is caused not by
Bill's occasional postings (no matter what his motives are) but by
this endless discussion about them.

 

[Seebs]

I realise too long in c.l.c stops people thinking and rationalising, but
it is clear to anyone that replies to Bill do NOT help in the slightest.

Empirically, this is not true.

You've got a couple of problems here. One is that you're not defining
"help" first -- do you mean "help Bill" or "help other posters"?

But the biggest problem is that you're asserting that something is "clear"
when people disagree about it, which generally means it's not clear.
(Hint: If people do not agree on whether or not something is clear,
it's not.)

-s

 

[Phil Carmody]

Troll/unteachable, who cares? The group just needs to stop replying.

Isn't that just a little grouchy? Perfectly correct, but grouchy.

Phil