Question

[santosh]

Personally I try to answer questions when I can on "C and related
subjects broadly interpreted", i.e. Standard C, POSIX/Windows APIs,
C++, threads, assembly, hardware, etc.

Hahahaha!

What other subjects are "related" to C to you? IC fabrication? Materials
science? Quantum physics?

Everything under the Sun?

If people aren't interested,
they could just kill the thread.

Of course. If the thread is about an area of C that does not hold their
interest. However that doesn't mean that any subject even remotely
connected to C (or considered as such by Antoninus Twink) becomes
topical here.

But no, they always have to go on and
on about their narrow view of topicality - trotting it out a dozen
times a day doesn't seem to weary them.

Discuss C here. Discuss C++ in comp.lang.c++. Discuss threads in
comp.programming.threads. Discuss Windows programming in
comp.os.ms-windows.programming.win32. Discuss POSIX in
comp.unix.programming. Discuss assembler in comp.os.asm.x86 and
alt.lang.asm. Discuss hardware in alt.comp.hardware and
comp.sys.ibm-pc.hardware.* among others. Discuss etc. in alt.etc.etc.

There, not so hard is it?

 

[Kenny McCormack]

Personally I try to answer questions when I can on "C and related
subjects broadly interpreted", i.e. Standard C, POSIX/Windows APIs, C++,
threads, assembly, hardware, etc. If people aren't interested, they
could just kill the thread. But no, they always have to go on and on
about their narrow view of topicality - trotting it out a dozen times a
day doesn't seem to weary them.

Ya gotta admire their stamina!

 

[Default User]

user923005 wrote:

Is this a standard usenet tradition?

Yes. If you think about it, how could it be otherwise? To have
restricted topicality in newsgroups, you have to be able to discuss
what those restrictions are.




Brian

 

[santosh]

santosh said:



You wouldn't have thought so, but apparently it's beyond the ability
of some people to grasp even such a simple idea as this.

I still think there's a little scope for lightening up in clc, but
whilst the consensus remains as it is, the only polite thing to do is
to comply (whilst, perhaps, doing a little light lobbying on
occasion).

I don't mind an occasional POSIX or Win32 based answer (with a
redirection for more discussion), but Twink is inviting questions on
anything to do with computers, which, IMO, can only damage clc, if he
is successful.

 

[Richard]

I don't mind an occasional POSIX or Win32 based answer (with a
redirection for more discussion), but Twink is inviting questions on
anything to do with computers, which, IMO, can only damage clc, if he
is successful.

Put it away Santosh. You would be far better off ignoring anything you
dont like rather than boring the rest of us with your small minded
outlook on what YOU think CLC should be.

 

[santosh]

santosh <[email protected]> writes:

[ ... ]

Put it away Santosh. You would be far better off ignoring anything you
dont like rather than boring the rest of us with your small minded
outlook on what YOU think CLC should be.

Not just me. Most of those who have voiced their views seem to agree
that, at the very least, AT's take on clc's topicality is wrong.

Anyway thanks for your advice.

 

[utilisateur de lcc-win32]

On many systems (yours included) int can represent all the values of
unsigned short and more. This has two consequences:

(a) before the arithmetic happens the values of a and b are converted
to int;

(b) when the int result is returned, some bits might be lost in the
conversion to unsigned short. This might be a real worry if you
were multiplying, for example. It matters less with a divide.

The message is little confusing because it talks about assignment, but
parameter passing and value returning are treated much like assignment
in C so the compiler is probably borrowing a message from another
context. In this context precision refers to the number of
representable values -- wider types, in general, have greater
precision.


What compiler is it? You may has to ask in a specific group. The
message does not correspond to any that come from ne of the compiler I
have access to, so I can't help there.

They look familiar to me. Lcc-win32 prints this messages when
requesting a *VERY* high warning level, i.e, -A -pedantic, or -A -A
or -pedantic -pedantic, but then you asked for it and I find this
warnings are very useful!

 

[Richard Bos]

Stop astro-turfing.

Richard

 

[utilisateur de lcc-win32]

Stop astro-turfing.

I did not write that.

I do not even know what that means.

(btw, what does "astro-turfing" mean?)

 

[santosh]

I did not write that.

I do not even know what that means.

(btw, what does "astro-turfing" mean?)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing>

Also for your case:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sockpuppet_(Internet)>