Richard Heathfield wrote:
The developer dot star post was not any attempt to "teach" C. You've
concealed the fact that in the post there is full disclosure that I was
temporarily returning to C to do "global" computing, might make errors,
had made errors, and trusted a collegial site to make any corrections
needed in the spirit of open source.
Lie no. one. The page claims you are a teacher - what itself is a lie
as the page proves in the source at its end.
Whereas you've set yourself up as a *guru* and yet you have lied,
saying that a "straightforward test for numeric digits" is one when it
used isdigit to make the test!
The next lie. The onoly who claims to be a guru is
(e-mail address removed), even as (e-mail address removed) proves himself
constantly that he knows nothing about C.
My code may have been "obscure" if you so misunderstood the problem but
you're hopeless if you can present a USE of a system function as the
solution. You're a thief of intellectual property and a liar.
The next lie. Your code IS obscure, not errorfree and shows clearly
that you knows nothing about C.
Who? Amateur programmers, retirees with anger management problems, and
script kiddies? I am soooo scared.
When you writes this about yourself, then, but only then you are
right.
...and completely misleading, Monkey Boy, which was your intent: to
confuse in a deliberate campaign of Swift Boating as you did with
Schildt.
When you writes that about yourself, then, but only then you are
right.
I taught SAS C in 1989 when I was a daily user of C (today, I have, it
seems, forgotten more *real* C than you will ever know). EBCDIC C
programming is a rarity and in ASCII the programmer has to worry about
letters, which have what you call "code points" higher than '9'.
The ONLY sensible way to code the test remains
if (intCharValue >= [int]'0' && intCharValue <= [int]'9')
Another sample that shows perfectly that you does not know what C is.
Anybody else with not more than 20 hours practise in programming C
will know what you lack of knowledge is on that line.
NOT in the sense that this won't "break" someone's C environment but in
the sense that the final C code in a particular C environment has to be
an && condition which shows the minimal assumption, that digits are
adjacent.
Another lie from you. You does not even know what C is as proven
above.
Your big lie is that there is one C when in fact nearly all C
programmers have to use a dictated and not fully standard compiler.
Your code tells them to use a library function, isdigit(), which I
suppose is part of your Standard but may not be available elsewhere.
Acusing one in havinbg no knowledge by proving youself again that the
only who has any possible lack of knowledge is yourself is making
yourself a fool.
I may have missed it. Perhaps it's a fundamental part of the toolkit of
every C programmer, and I am too dumb to see it. But here, your lie
remains, because you call a use of the function "a straightforward test
for numerics" when it isn't.
You proves yourself again that you are nothing else than a fool. Name
one, only one programmer on the world who will use printf but will be
unable to use isdigit. You proves yourself again as fool.
Has you ever readed the standard from 1989? No, surely not.
Has you ever tried to find and read the standard from 1999?
No, surely not, the fool (e-mail address removed) is unable for that.
Furthermore it is my understanding that most C library functions can be
coded in C. A conforming definition would use your Standard's guarantee
that the numeric value of digits are adjacent, and would be in fact my
&& test of being in the interval.
(e-mail address removed) proves himself again as too dumb to learn a bit
about C.
Your code doesn't "break" because it uses a magic function which isn't
available to all C programmers. It doesn't do the job it says it will
do. Furthermore, it makes the legacy assumption that all characters are
bytes.
Another lie of the fool who named himself as (e-mail address removed)
OK, I don't understand the Standard's guarantees. But you don't know
how to code clearly (and people who think your code is clear are
deceiving themselves), and you implemented a solution that doesn't do
the job you says it does.
The fool (e-mail address removed) lies again.
As was the case in 2002, you've spread confusion again because your
purpose here is to character assassinate and trash, as in your campaign
against Schildt. You now admit that my code doesn't "fall foul".
Another lie of the fool (e-mail address removed)
Your claim was so outre that earlier this evening I understood you to
be claiming that you merely needed to test for greater than or equal to
zero to check for a number. I now realize that your praxis was even
worse.
More lies from the fool (e-mail address removed)
As was the case in 2002, you've made deliberate misstatements in order
to Swift Boat and spread confusion.
Another lie from the fool (e-mail address removed). He has nothing
learned since then.
**** the standard, and **** you. You have lied consistently, about
Schildt, in 2002, and here:
No the fools blames himself again that he does not know what C is.
Look what the fool (e-mail address removed) says to himself:
And here is how (e-mail address removed) defines himself:
Like most Swift Boaters and most liars in business, you are fearful of
and resentful of authority and in search therefore of easy "marks" to
bully with your lies. C cannot be "standardized" because it is an
assembly language, and **** ISO if it makes this claim.
(e-mail address removed) continueing speaking about himself:
I am in NO mood to read your code. You are a cheap liar, a code monkey,
and a thug.
--
Tschau/Bye
Herbert
Visit
http://www.ecomstation.de the home of german eComStation
eComStation 1.2 Deutsch ist da!
