FAQ incorrect?

D

Default User

Keith said:
Yes, we know.

Usually someone posts a single followup to anyone who responds to the
troll in question, and that generally works reasonably well. Starting
a new thread gives the troll more attention.

Not actually a new thread, at least for most of us. It's a change in
subject in an existing thread.



Brian
 
F

Frederick Gotham

Default User posted:
Not actually a new thread, at least for most of us. It's a change in
subject in an existing thread.


I just clicked "Reply", and then changed what was written in the "Subject"
textbox... didn't think it would have an effect on threading?
 
A

Al Balmer

Default User posted:



I just clicked "Reply", and then changed what was written in the "Subject"
textbox... didn't think it would have an effect on threading?

Depends on how people choose to display threads. My reader can start a
new thread when the subject changes, or not. Usually, I find it useful
to start a new thread, since the topic has changed.
 
K

Keith Thompson

Frederick Gotham said:
Default User posted:
I just clicked "Reply", and then changed what was written in the "Subject"
textbox... didn't think it would have an effect on threading?

I had already read the previous articles in the thread, so my
newsreader didn't display them. My newsreader probably displayed your
article as continuation of the thread (I'm not sure how or whether it
distinguishes that), but since the subject header didn't start with
"Re:" I assumed it was a new thread. I had to check the headers to
verify that it was a followup to something else.

Changing the subject header in a followup us usually not a good idea;
if you do so, it's usually a good idea to refer to the previous
subject ("New Subject (was: Old Subject)".
 
D

Default User

Al said:
in >> subject in an existing thread.

Depends on how people choose to display threads. My reader can start a
new thread when the subject changes, or not. Usually, I find it useful
to start a new thread, since the topic has changed.


You can view it that way, but it's not actually a new thread. By that I
mean the poster did not create a new thread, but used the reply
mechanism with a change in subject. The references will be there to
link it to the previous messages in the thread.




Brian
 
A

Al Balmer

You can view it that way, but it's not actually a new thread.

If I choose to view it that way, it is. As far as I'm concerned, if I
tell Agent to start a new thread on a subject change, there's no
discernible difference (I don't display the references header.)
By that I
mean the poster did not create a new thread, but used the reply
mechanism with a change in subject.

Yes, we know. He said that.
The references will be there to
link it to the previous messages in the thread.
We know that, too.
 
D

Default User

Al said:
On 5 Aug 2006 19:42:43 GMT, "Default User" <[email protected]>
wrote:

If I choose to view it that way, it is. As far as I'm concerned, if I
tell Agent to start a new thread on a subject change, there's no
discernible difference (I don't display the references header.)

But that's not the normal definition of a new thread.
Yes, we know. He said that.

Ok.


Brian
 
C

CBFalconer

Frederick said:
Default User posted:


I just clicked "Reply", and then changed what was written in the
"Subject" textbox... didn't think it would have an effect on
threading?

It doesn't, in proper news readers that use the 'references' header
field correctly. Some stupid systems, such as Google, ignore that
field and depend on the subject header alone.
 
E

ena8t8si

Andrey said:
nroberts said:
...
although they can be written in a variety of ways. The second parameter
may be declared char *argv[] (see question 6.4), you can use any names
for the two parameters, and you can use old-style syntax:

int main()

int main(argc, argv)
int argc; char **argv;

......... http://c-faq.com/ansi/maindecl.html

The way this is worded it makes one think that "int main()" is a valid
declaration of main. However, main is allowed to only take two params
of (int, char **) or 0, correct? In C is not an empty param list an
"unspecified" param list? In that case "int main()" would be invalid
as it matches neither of the standard signatures.

The way it is worded (seeing the "old-style syntax" mentioned and so on) makes
it clear that it is specifically referring to the declaration of 'main', which
is a part of _definition_ of 'main'. When the empty parameter list '()' is used
in a definition, it always means 'no parameters' (equivalent to '(void)'), not
'unspecified parameters'.
...
It also has "int main()" but has no reasoning for its validity except
ref to the std I don't have access to. Is that truely a valid
signature? I always thought you _needed_ (void).
...

Only in the declaration that is not a definition. In a definition '()' and
'(void)' mean the same thing - no parameters.

Not quite the same thing. Only the definition with (void)
serves as a prototype.
 
R

Rod Pemberton

Keith Thompson said:
If you'll put together a coherent and consistent set of topicality
guidelines, let us know and we might consider it (no guarantees of
course)

Why are you so paternalistic? Nobody cares what you have to say or what
rules you want to impose upon us. You post enough on your own, that you
should have your own newsgroup... And, you could block me, Kenny, Jacob,
etc. or anyone you're to immature to deal with without comment...


Rod Pemberton
 
R

Rod Pemberton

Richard Heathfield said:
The kind of people who make good computer programmers are not the kind of
people to be confused easily by the fact that a newsgroup might discuss K&R
C, C90, /and/ C99.

Ha Ha! Hilarious! I don't know how you can make such statements. Do you
actually have _any_ _real_ programming experience?

What people do you think become programmers in the US? Do you understand
that it is the people who have no chance of entering a higher paid field:
physicist, mathematician, electrical engineer, or architect, etc... that
become computer programmers?

I've worked with and known five/six hundred computer programmers. The good
computer programmers (if we define good as somewhat smart, fair ability to
think by themselves, decent ability to find and correct errors, etc..) were
always easily lost in their own worlds and easily confused by common
everyday events, and usually couldn't _both_ read and implement a
specification...(so it always took two). I still know dozens of programmers
who can't program a register or set and clear bits. And, from conversations
on other NG's I've _many_ CS majors tell me they don't know how to.


Rod Pemberton
 
D

Dann Corbit

Rod Pemberton said:
Ha Ha! Hilarious! I don't know how you can make such statements. Do you
actually have _any_ _real_ programming experience?

What people do you think become programmers in the US? Do you understand
that it is the people who have no chance of entering a higher paid field:
physicist, mathematician, electrical engineer, or architect, etc... that
become computer programmers?

Did you know that 10 years ago there were 2,000 millionaires at Microsoft?

I have worked with hundreds of programmers who get over $100/hour.
I've worked with and known five/six hundred computer programmers. The
good
computer programmers (if we define good as somewhat smart, fair ability to
think by themselves, decent ability to find and correct errors, etc..)
were
always easily lost in their own worlds and easily confused by common
everyday events, and usually couldn't _both_ read and implement a
specification...(so it always took two). I still know dozens of
programmers
who can't program a register or set and clear bits. And, from
conversations
on other NG's I've _many_ CS majors tell me they don't know how to.

My experience with programmers is not like yours. I wonder where you have
worked. I have run into a few incompetants, but they are unusual. I also
have a friend who has 500,000 lines of code perfectly memorized in his head.
He's at the other end of the spectrum.
 
M

Morris Dovey

Rod Pemberton (in (e-mail address removed)) said:

| || The kind of people who make good computer programmers are not the
|| kind of people to be confused easily by the fact that a newsgroup
|| might discuss K&R C, C90, /and/ C99.
|
| Ha Ha! Hilarious! I don't know how you can make such statements.
| Do you actually have _any_ _real_ programming experience?

Must be a troll - no one could be this clueless. At least he
recognizes that Richard is at the /other/ end of the bell-shaped
curve...

| What people do you think become programmers in the US? Do you
| understand that it is the people who have no chance of entering a
| higher paid field: physicist, mathematician, electrical engineer,
| or architect, etc... that become computer programmers?

Not very convincing assertion in this forum. Perhaps he really is
clueless...

| I've worked with and known five/six hundred computer programmers.
| The good computer programmers (if we define good as somewhat smart,
| fair ability to think by themselves, decent ability to find and
| correct errors, etc..) were always easily lost in their own worlds
| and easily confused by common everyday events, and usually couldn't
| _both_ read and implement a specification...(so it always took
| two). I still know dozens of programmers who can't program a
| register or set and clear bits. And, from conversations on other
| NG's I've _many_ CS majors tell me they don't know how to.

Ah, a bottom-feeder (they swim in schools).
 
R

Richard Heathfield

Rod Pemberton said:
Ha Ha! Hilarious!

You are easily amused.
I don't know how you can make such statements.

I use a keyboard for typing the statement at a computer running a news
client. The news client takes care of posting the message to my news
server.
Do you actually have _any_ _real_ programming experience?

How could I possibly have any real programming experience, and yet disagree
with you? It just doesn't bear thinking about, does it?

What people do you think become programmers in the US?

I never mentioned the US. I also was not talking about "programmers" in
general, but about "good programmers" - the kind that can spot adjectives,
the kind that realise there's more to the world than the US, the kind that
are capable of thinking clearly, as a good programmer must be able to do.
 
R

Richard

Richard Heathfield said:
jacob navia said:
int main(void or int main(int argc,char *argv[])

you'd be wrong, because the first of your examples is a parenthesis short of
a declarator.

Pedantic and unnecessary.
The kind of people who make good computer programmers are not the kind of
people to be confused easily by the fact that a newsgroup might discuss K&R
C, C90, /and/ C99.

Are you sure? Not in comp.std.c, but here there are many good
programmers who come for help in C and generally only use one "standard"
of C. Noting wrong with pointing out "portable" techniques of course,
but being all big & clever over too many standards can and does confuse
many people. Not every one lives C : they use C to live.
 
R

Richard Heathfield

Richard said:
Richard Heathfield said:
jacob navia said:
int main(void or int main(int argc,char *argv[])

you'd be wrong, because the first of your examples is a parenthesis short
of a declarator.

Pedantic and unnecessary.

Pedantic? Yes. Unnecessary? I'm not convinced.
Are you sure?
Yes.

Not in comp.std.c, but here there are many good
programmers who come for help in C and generally only use one "standard"
of C.

Sure. So do I. I doubt whether I've had to touch more than a dozen or so K&R
C programs, ever. Although I've taken the trouble to learn about C99, I
don't actually use it (except insofar as I have modified my C style to make
my programs legal in C99 as well as in C90). So I, too, only use one
"standard" of C. That doesn't mean I am necessarily confused by the fact
that this newsgroup might discuss programs written in K&R C or C99.
Noting wrong with pointing out "portable" techniques of course,
but being all big & clever over too many standards can and does confuse
many people.

Ideally, there would be one standard. This isn't an ideal world. But it is
possible to deal with the fact of multiple standards without making too
much of a fuss about it. And, when I'm giving advice to someone whose name
I don't recognise (and therefore might reasonably be expected to be new to
the group), I tend to play down the whole C90 vs C99 thing - not mentioning
it unless it's relevant, and if it /is/ relevant then only mentioning the
bits I have to, in as non-polemical a way as I can manage. If everybody
were like me, this newsgroup would be a perfect place. :)
Not every one lives C : they use C to live.

I don't understand. <g,d&r>
 
R

Richard

Richard Heathfield said:
Richard said:
Richard Heathfield said:
jacob navia said:
int main(void or int main(int argc,char *argv[])

you'd be wrong, because the first of your examples is a parenthesis short
of a declarator.

Pedantic and unnecessary.

Pedantic? Yes. Unnecessary? I'm not convinced.

Which probably indicates you spend too long programming and not enough
in the real world. The thread had got to a depth where real programmers
were discussing. It is impolite and cocky, IMO, to point out an obvious
typo. After all, good programmers dont get so easily confused ... :-;

I'm not. One of those beg to differ points I suppose.
Sure. So do I. I doubt whether I've had to touch more than a dozen or so K&R
C programs, ever. Although I've taken the trouble to learn about C99, I
don't actually use it (except insofar as I have modified my C style to make
my programs legal in C99 as well as in C90). So I, too, only use one
"standard" of C. That doesn't mean I am necessarily confused by the fact
that this newsgroup might discuss programs written in K&R C or C99.

Why would it? You've just advertised your knowledge of the others.
Ideally, there would be one standard. This isn't an ideal world. But
it is

Yes. We know. This is why this thread is now developing.
possible to deal with the fact of multiple standards without making too
much of a fuss about it. And, when I'm giving advice to someone whose name
I don't recognise (and therefore might reasonably be expected to be new to
the group), I tend to play down the whole C90 vs C99 thing - not mentioning
it unless it's relevant, and if it /is/ relevant then only mentioning the
bits I have to, in as non-polemical a way as I can manage. If
everybody

This is good practice : no doubt about it.
were like me, this newsgroup would be a perfect place. :)


I don't understand. <g,d&r>

??
 
D

Default User

I have worked with hundreds of programmers who get over $100/hour.

Remember that Pemberton is a troll. You're better off killfiling or at
least ignoring his rants.

Naturally, many current programmers were (and are still) engineers.



Brian
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,483
Members
44,901
Latest member
Noble71S45

Latest Threads

Top