reply the answer

[Richard Tobin]

[/QUOTE]

That depends how traditional you want to be. When everyone who had
occasion to write such things knew Latin, the would naturally write
"AD 1", because they would interpret "AD" as an abbreviation for a
Latin phrase.

As for 1 AD or AD 1, it's Anno Domini uno, not unum Anno Domini - in the
Year of our Lord nr. 1, not in one year of our Lord.

But nowadays, "AD" is not "Anno Domini" except to a few people. It's
just an uninterpreted part of the English language, and usually
follows the number.

-- Richard

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Dollin said:

Why "obviously"? 2000 AD is /British/.

It *is*? A friend used to buy it regularly, and I'd occasionally pinch a
copy, and it seemed very Usanian to me - lots of mindless violence and
bad grammar. I believe you, of course, but I'm somewhat staggered by
the discovery.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...


But nowadays, "AD" is not "Anno Domini" except to a few people.
It's just an uninterpreted part of the English language, and
usually follows the number.

Maybe to you. But not to those brought up with the English
language.

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...
And that's just the beginning. Hence my prediction: we won't have a
_properly_ thorough time handling system for another decade yet.)

Decade? Would you care to take bets on that.

 

[Richard Tobin]

But nowadays, "AD" is not "Anno Domini" except to a few people.
It's just an uninterpreted part of the English language, and
usually follows the number.

[/QUOTE]

Maybe to you. But not to those brought up with the English
language.

The English langauage is what English speakers speak and write. The
general modern usage is to put AD after the date, so that is English,
whether you like it or not. I myself might well write it before the
date, but that merely shows that I have an inclination to pedantry[*],
not that it is English.

"Formerly the practice was to write AD preceding the date"
- The Collins Concise Dictionary

[*] by everyday standards, not those of this newsgroup.

-- Richard

 

[CBFalconer]

Maybe to you. But not to those brought up with the English
language.

The English langauage is what English speakers speak and write.
The general modern usage is to put AD after the date, so that is
English, whether you like it or not. I myself might well write
it before the date, but that merely shows that I have an
inclination to pedantry[*], not that it is English.

Confusion. I meant that AD does represent "Anno Domini".

 

[Charles Richmond]

Maybe to you. But not to those brought up with the English
language.

I thought it was CE (for Christian era) now instead of
AD... And BC becomes BCE for "before Christian era".

 

[Keith Thompson]

I thought it was CE (for Christian era) now instead of
AD... And BC becomes BCE for "before Christian era".

In some fields, yes (and "CE" typically stands for "Common Era"), but
that hasn't replaced the AD and BC forms.

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Charles Richmond said:

I thought it was CE (for Christian era) now instead of
AD... And BC becomes BCE for "before Christian era".

You are not the first person I've encountered who thinks that.
Nevertheless, not everyone agrees.

 

[Dave Vandervies]

Decade? Would you care to take bets on that.

I don't think he's claiming that we will have one by then, only that it
won't happen before then.


dave

 

[Richard Tobin]

I thought it was CE (for Christian era) now instead of
AD... And BC becomes BCE for "before Christian era".

The C stands for "Common", not "Christian". The idea is to have a
name for it that does not refer to a religion, since the dating scheme
is no longer restricted to Christians.

-- Richard

 

[Richard Bos]

Decade? Would you care to take bets on that.

Apart from me not being a betting man, it would be rather unwise of me
to take a bet on something which the other party can influence. I can
see it happening: we place the bet, you spend the next nine years
preparing this very library in your spare time, and I have to pay up
because you finish it just in time. Hah. If you want sponsorship for
your time library, you can ask the government

--
<http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~pgut001/pubs/vista_cost.txt>
<http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/423>
<http://www.aaxnet.com/editor/edit043.html>
cbfalconer at maineline dot net

And fix yer sig.

Richard

 

[Richard Bos]

The C stands for "Common", not "Christian". The idea is to have a
name for it that does not refer to a religion, since the dating scheme
is no longer restricted to Christians.

Which is more than a little self-delusional, since it's undeniable
historical fact that our calendar is based on the Christian faith, no
matter whether the speaker believes in that faith or not.

Richard

 

[Richard Tobin]

Which is more than a little self-delusional, since it's undeniable
historical fact that our calendar is based on the Christian faith, no
matter whether the speaker believes in that faith or not.

It's only based on it in a trivial way. If you're not a Christian, it's
just an arbitrary starting point. It's not as if you have to sign up to
any beliefs to use it.

-- Richard

 

[Chris Hills]

Which is more than a little self-delusional, since it's undeniable
historical fact that our calendar is based on the Christian faith, no
matter whether the speaker believes in that faith or not.

The calendar has NEVER been based on the Christian faith.

There have been many calendars in many parts of the world. Commerce,
and politics to some extent, has over they years merged and adjusted
the calendars to fit Commerce and government. Faith had little to do
with it.

As it happened the Calendar the UK used in the 18th and 19th centuries
became the de-facto calendar of the Empire. Due to our selfless
civilising of the rest of the world most of the world ended up
using it.

BTW Ask many Christians and they will tell you that JC was born on
varying dates from -10 to + 30 so you Richard are self delusional.
There are precious few historical facts that wil support your
assertations

The "Christian" Calendar isn't Christian anyway. Christmas and Easter
are mainly pagan festivals. Christmas as we know it now is a modern
invention no more than 100 years old. I know Christians (and a lot
of academics) who claim JC was not born in December I believe there is
some historical evidence that "Christmas" was moved to the date it now
has to stamp out a Pagan festival which is still celebrated with holy,
ivy, mistletoe, decorated trees, plum pudding, feasting, antient songs,
decorations etc.....

but this is WAY off topic for C.L..C

Unless it is Comp.Lang.christianity

 

[Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood]

Groovy hepcat Eric Sosman was jivin' on Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:54:09
-0400 in comp.lang.c.
Re: reply the answer's a cool scene! Dig it!

Peter 'Shaggy' Haywood wrote On 06/26/07 10:12,:

Chapter and verse? (In particular, C&V for the case
where, as above, the function does not return at all?)

Can't give C&V on that one since I don't have C90 handy. But isn't
it true that all non-void functions require a return statement? I
thought the exception to that of main() came with C99. Well, I'll fish
out a copy of the C90 draft and look it up later.

--

Dig the even newer still, yet more improved, sig!

http://alphalink.com.au/~phaywood/
"Ain't I'm a dog?" - Ronny Self, Ain't I'm a Dog, written by G. Sherry & W. Walker.
I know it's not "technically correct" English; but since when was rock & roll "technically correct"?

 

[Richard Tobin]

Can't give C&V on that one since I don't have C90 handy. But isn't
it true that all non-void functions require a return statement? I
thought the exception to that of main() came with C99.

No, and it's nothing to do with C99's main() exception.

C90 says:

If a return statement without an expression is executed, and the value
of the function call is used by the caller, the behavior is undefined.
Reaching the } that terminates a function is equivalent to executing a
return statement without an expression.

Since the return value of main() is presumably used (to return the
value to the operating system), it would be undefined behaviour to
not have a return in main *if you reached the end of the function*.
But if you call exit() instead, the question does not arise.

-- Richard

 

[CBFalconer]

.... snip ...

As it happened the Calendar the UK used in the 18th and 19th
centuries became the de-facto calendar of the Empire. Due to
our selfless civilising of the rest of the world most of
the world ended up using it.

Are you about to return the thirteen days (or is is seventeen or
so?)?

 

[Mark McIntyre]

Are you about to return the thirteen days (or is is seventeen or
so?)?

And can I have my three years and 359 days back too?

Random websearch:
"The best available evidence concerning the date of Christ's birth
indicates that the date was possibly 6 January (25 Kislev), 4 BC."

--
Mark McIntyre

"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it."
--Brian Kernighan

 

[Richard Heathfield]

Chris Hills said:

As it happened the Calendar the UK used in the 18th and 19th
centuries became the de-facto calendar of the Empire. Due to our
selfless civilising of the rest of the world most of the world
ended up using it.

....which is obviously a Good Thing, because otherwise they'd be stuck
with using foreign calendars, and then where would we be?

BTW Ask many Christians and they will tell you that JC was born on
varying dates from -10 to + 30

That's a bigger range than I'd have given - I think most scholars are
probably of the opinion that Christ's birth was a few years BC (so to
speak) : 12BC to 4BC is the range I seem to recall.

so you Richard are self delusional.

No, he isn't. Richard Bos may be many things, but he isn't that. The
calendar (or at least the BC/AD part of it) is indeed based on the
Christian faith, as he rightly claimed.

As for the rest, it's a bit of a hodge-podge, really, much of it Latin
in origin, what with Ides and Calends and 7ember 8ober 9ember and
10ember being the 9th to 12th months for hysterical reasons, etc etc.

There are precious few historical facts that wil support your
assertations

Pfui. There are precious few historical facts, full stop, because
historians keep making up new ones which contradict the old ones. So if
you don't like the latest bunch, just wait 20 years, and they'll all be
proved wrong. (If that doesn't work, wait another 20. Iterate until
right, dead, or both.)

The "Christian" Calendar isn't Christian anyway. Christmas and Easter
are mainly pagan festivals.

Not to Christians.

Christmas as we know it now is a modern
invention no more than 100 years old. I know Christians (and a lot
of academics) who claim JC was not born in December

Best guess I heard was September, based on the fact that there were
shepherds in the fields, and (so I'm told) Sept is the time of year
when you get shepherds, if you live in Israel.

I believe there
is some historical evidence that "Christmas" was moved to the date it
now has to stamp out a Pagan festival which is still celebrated with
holy, ivy, mistletoe, decorated trees, plum pudding, feasting, antient
songs, decorations etc.....

Yeah, I never understood all this "stamping out" nonsense. If people
want to have fun, why not let them?

but this is WAY off topic for C.L..C

Unless it is Comp.Lang.christianity

We could do the whole Hallowe'en = Christmas thing to get it back to
numbers (as opposed to Numbers, of course), and that may provide us
with a route back to topicality.