Segfault City

[Keith Thompson]

(e-mail address removed) wrote: [...]

I realized that more and more programming "supervisors" are in fact
dependent on self-appointed experts like Richard who deliberately tell
lies, spread confusion and bully others.

Please go away. Your code sucks and you got called on it. So, please,
take it like a man, fix the code, then shut up.

He did go away, several weeks ago. The article you're replying to was
posted on June 24. The thread was already nicely dead.

 

[Mark F. Haigh]

(e-mail address removed) wrote: [...]

I realized that more and more programming "supervisors" are in fact
dependent on self-appointed experts like Richard who deliberately tell
lies, spread confusion and bully others.

Please go away. Your code sucks and you got called on it. So, please,
take it like a man, fix the code, then shut up.

He did go away, several weeks ago. The article you're replying to was
posted on June 24. The thread was already nicely dead.

Well, I guess I'll take the cue and go away myself now. I was trying
to do a little late-night c.l.c catch-up and ran across this gem of a
thread. My apologies.


Mark F. Haigh
(e-mail address removed)

 

[ena8t8si]

That changes the interface of the function. That might be a good
design choice, but it's not the one I'd picked.

Yes, true enough. I guess it's possible that the char
version would have useful behavior that the unsigned char
version wouldn't, although offhand I can't think of how.