[META] unanswered questions

[S.Tobias]

In the past weeks I asked two questions concerning unions,
and I got not a single reply to either. What should
I do next? Re-post them? Ask them again in csc?

 

[Lawrence Kirby]

In the past weeks I asked two questions concerning unions,
and I got not a single reply to either. What should
I do next? Re-post them? Ask them again in csc?

I looked back and saw one about defect reports and such. Looks
like an excellent candidate for c.s.c.

Lawrence

 

[Merrill & Michele]

I looked back and saw one about defect reports and such. Looks
like an excellent candidate for c.s.c.

My questions are unusual, but since your book's buried in my stacks, I
think, you'll find me engaging. Q) What's csc? MPJ

 

[Jens.Toerring]

My questions are unusual, but since your book's buried in my stacks, I
think, you'll find me engaging. Q) What's csc? MPJ

comp.std.c, a group for discussions about the C standards (i.e. not
just on how to apply it, but the rationale, omissions, contradictions,
how to improve it etc.). If you thought the language lawyers were here
in clc just head over and have a look;-)

Regards, Jens

 

[Merrill & Michele]

comp.std.c, a group for discussions about the C standards (i.e. not
just on how to apply it, but the rationale, omissions, contradictions,
how to improve it etc.). If you thought the language lawyers were here
in clc just head over and have a look;-)

Regards, Jens

Soll es etwa woanders in Brauchnetz das Intelligente existieren? jens

 

[Dan Pop]

In the past weeks I asked two questions concerning unions,
and I got not a single reply to either. What should
I do next? Re-post them?

If they passed unanswered it is because either no one knew the answer or
no one found them interesting enough to be worth his time. There is
little point in reposting them.

Ask them again in csc?

Yes, if they are topical for that newsgroup. Otherwise, try clcm.

Dan

 

[S.Tobias]

If they passed unanswered it is because either no one knew the answer or
no one found them interesting enough to be worth his time. There is
little point in reposting them.

Someone who might know the answer might have missed my question then or
might have been too busy; new people start to appear in the newsgroup
who might be able to answer; I might have been fuzzy and may want
to clarify my question this time. I think these are all valid reasons.

Yes, if they are topical for that newsgroup.

How to tell? Sometimes I see questions and answers in csc that I would
qualify for clc (I don't mean obvious mis-addressings). Could it be
that more difficult questions are asked in csc? In that case I'd rather
like to be told to ask there rather than to judge myself (I have been
told so before). OTOH sometimes I see people from csc answer in clc,
so they must be reading it too.

Otherwise, try clcm.

What's the difference? I see same regulars in both groups.
I miss the reason why both groups exist.

 

[S.Tobias]

(The first one was "accessing comon initial sequence in union" and
I asked it in mid-August.)

I looked back and saw one about defect reports and such. Looks
like an excellent candidate for c.s.c.

(This was "access union member via ptr", asked recently.)

Thanks for encouragement, but then I don't understand why? My question
was not about the Standard, or new features, or even its clarification.
I asked about how certain people infered from the Std that some code
was invalid (and gave my opposite reasons); I thought it was more a
C question. The fact that "certain people" were the Commitee, and my
question concerned a DR (note that I didn't refer to its main issue),
should not change the topic of the post.


Although perhaps I didn't express myself clearly, I hoped to receive
some general directions how to behave. Some more reasons and thoughts
I put in my reply to Dan Pop.

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Someone who might know the answer might have missed my question then or
might have been too busy; new people start to appear in the newsgroup
who might be able to answer; I might have been fuzzy and may want
to clarify my question this time. I think these are all valid reasons.

Its worth posting a couple of times, with a reasonable wait eg weeks
between them. If you get no responses after 2 or 3 goes, then probably
nobody can /wants to answer. As long as you don't repost 20 mins after the
first posting....

 

[Alan Balmer]

If they passed unanswered it is because either no one knew the answer or
no one found them interesting enough to be worth his time. There is
little point in reposting them.

I disagree. Second postings, marked as such, often draw answers when
the first attempt didn't. It may be because some who didn't feel that
they could provide a definitive answer do have worthwhile information,
but don't jump in until it's clear that no one else will do better.

 

[Dan Pop]

Someone who might know the answer might have missed my question then or
might have been too busy; new people start to appear in the newsgroup
who might be able to answer; I might have been fuzzy and may want
to clarify my question this time. I think these are all valid reasons.

Unless you rephrase the question, all you can achieve by reposting it
is annoying the regulars. Some of them may killfile you, as a result,
which is probably not what you want.

How to tell?

If the relevant text of the standard is not clear enough to you, asking
for a clarification there is OK. Ditto if, after a careful search, you're
unable to find the relevant text.

Sometimes I see questions and answers in csc that I would
qualify for clc (I don't mean obvious mis-addressings). Could it be
that more difficult questions are asked in csc? In that case I'd rather
like to be told to ask there rather than to judge myself (I have been
told so before).

The distinction between the two newsgroups is not very clear. When in
doubt, try c.l.c first. If you're not satisfied with the answer(s) you
get, try again on c.s.c.

OTOH sometimes I see people from csc answer in clc,
so they must be reading it too.

Some people read both newsgroups, some questions are crossposted to both
newsgroups.

What's the difference? I see same regulars in both groups.

You're hallucinating. There are c.l.c.m regulars that are never seen in
c.l.c (unless the questions are crossposted in both newsgroups).

I miss the reason why both groups exist.

c.l.c.m exists for people who don't want to put up with the noise in c.l.c
as well as for the regular c.l.c people. It was created, about 8 years
ago, by c.l.c people who were annoyed by the noise level in c.l.c (it was
somewhat bigger than it is today). It has never been a great success,
because of the latency inherent in any human-moderated newsgroup.

Dan

 

[Dan Pop]

You may also want to garble the host/domain part of your email address,
to reduce the load on your SMTP server(s).

Dan

 

[S.Tobias]

Second postings, marked as such, [...]

How do I do it properly?

Or better, could you point me to more specific instructions how to do
things the right way? Through this week-end I tried to find something,
but usually the documents (such as faq from news.announce.newusers, or
some rfc-s I stumbled on) are very general and don't contain much
more than anybody could come up to himself. Kind of "Current Usenet
Savoir-Vivre" manual with examples would be nice.

 

[S.Tobias]

You're hallucinating. There are c.l.c.m regulars that are never seen in
c.l.c (unless the questions are crossposted in both newsgroups).

I didn't know that, I'm sorry. clcm runs too slowly for me to record
those people subconsciously - I usually noticed the names I already new
from c[ls]c. Apologies to those other regulars I didn't notice.

 

[Alan Balmer]

Second postings, marked as such, [...]

How do I do it properly?

I don't recall ever seeing a formal recommendation. I've seen the
original subject line with "- Second Request" appended. That seems to
be satisfactory.

 

[Dan Pop]

You're hallucinating. There are c.l.c.m regulars that are never seen in
c.l.c (unless the questions are crossposted in both newsgroups).

I didn't know that, I'm sorry. clcm runs too slowly for me to record
those people subconsciously - I usually noticed the names I already new
from c[ls]c. Apologies to those other regulars I didn't notice.

People like Hans-Bernhard Broeker, Francis Glassborow, Douglas A. Gwyn or
Brian Inglis are virtually never seen posting in c.l.c, unless the
thread is crossposted to another newsgroup where they are active
participants.

Dan