Why is it dangerous?

[Flash Gordon]

James Dow Allen wrote, On 14/08/08 08:22:

I've time to read very few Usenet groups these days.
Are many as totally devoid of humor as c.l.c?

You say that but you are failing to spot some of the humour.

Did anyone seriously think I was worried about the warning
message? (I *do* use a simple 'grep -v' to remove
one irrelevant gcc warning, but haven't bothered for
the friendly "dangerous" message.)

Some people are concerned about completely clean builds (no warnings at
all) and it was not obvious to me (at least) whether you were or not.

Another poster implied that a reason gets() is "dangerous"
is that it will disappear when the pedants take over
libc!

That would be me (unless someone else posted a similar comment) and I
even put a smiley on it just in case you did not realise it was intended
as a humorous comment.

Does anyone think any of us would have trouble
writing our own gets() when it goes missing from libc?
No.

(This would also be a trivial way to get rid of the
"dangerous" message.) In fact, at the risk of encouraging
the mob to Repeat_The_Obvious One_More_Time I'll put a
gets implementation in the public domain right now:

/* Not tested */
char *gets(char *s)
{
s = fgets(s, 1000000, stdin);

The behaviour is not the same as gets if the buffer is larger than
1000000 bytes

Hmmm. Surprised that the pedants don't add a string length
count to index() to deal with unterminated strings.

Must resist bait... must resist bait...

<snip>

 

[Default User]

Default User said:


Such as?

Well, Usanians. Do you think that is a standard abreviation? If we're
going to harass people about "u" and "ur", then other such crap should
be frowned upon as well. If you absolutely can't bring yourself to use
the standard term "American", then write it out, as in, "many people
from the USA . . . ."




Brian

 

[Ben Bacarisse]

The behaviour is not the same as gets if the buffer is larger than
1000000 bytes

or if INT_MAX < 1000000. fgets(s, INT_MAX, stdin) is probably the
best bet.

 

[Antoninus Twink]

If we're going to harass people about "u" and "ur", then other such
crap should be frowned upon as well.

Say, here's a radical suggestion: why not just not harass people at all?

 

[Default User]

Default User said:


It's not an abbreviation. It's a neologism (but it's a strange breed
of neologism, since it's now quite well-established).

I don't believe to be well-established at all. It's also insulting to
many Americans. But you knew that already.

Since you're being so picky about language usage, please learn to
type "abbreviation" consistently. Your current success rate seems to
be 50%, which is a touch low, wouldn't you say?

Are you seriously going to nitpick about a typo? That's pretty weak.

To what standard does the term "American" conform?

A tradition of at least a few hundred years. In both the USA and the
UK. That includes every dictionary of the English language. But you
knew that.

then write it out, as in, "many people

I find "Usanian" more convenient, thanks.

People who write "u" and "ur" find it to be more convenient as well.

You know that at least one person your choice to be offensive. You are
of course free to post as you wish. As am I. We'll have this discussion
(at least my first part) each time. It's up to you how you want to
approach things.



Brian

 

[Default User]

Default User said:

Since you're being so picky about language, perhaps you should
examine the grammar of that sentence more closely.

Are you claiming that Usanians was a typo? If not, then it is
irrelevant. I will freely admit that I don't proofread as well as I
should. I won't respond to any others you may find.

Are you seriously going to nitpick about an accurate descriptive
term? That's even weaker.

It's not accurate, it's not even sensible. USA is a recognized
abbreviation. "Usa" is not a word. To further hang a suffix off it is
ridiculous. It looks silly, and you offend Americans. Whether you want
to admit it or not, the typical term for people from the only nation
with American in its name is "American".

Dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive, and in any case lag
behind neologisms by a number of years.

That's true, but they're the best we have. It also doesn't make all
neologisms sensible. Further it doesn't address the offensive nature of
some.

If you don't like my use of
language, well, neither are you under any obligation to read my
articles or provide me with help.

I'm also free to complain about your offensive usage.



Brian

 

[Keith Thompson]

I don't believe to be well-established at all. It's also insulting to
many Americans. But you knew that already.

[...]

Personally, I know of a grand total of one American who's offended by
it.

Speaking as an American myself, I find the term "Usanian" slightly
odd, mildly amusing, easily understandable, quite unambiguous, and
utterly inoffensive.

I can also understand why residents of North and/or South America
outside the USA might be annoyed by the assumption that the term
"American" applies only to residents of the USA. I'm not interested
in debating whether they *should* find it annoying, but I can
certainly see a rationale for it.

I can see no such rationale for being offended by "Usanians".

The problem, I think, is that the USA is one of the very few countries
whose name doesn't refer specifically to its location, but that does
refer to a larger region within which it's located, but without
acknowleding the subset relationship. "Mexico", for example, is
unambiguous. "South Korea" isn't all of Korea, but the name
acknowledges that.

It's not an easy problem to solve. Perhaps you might consider giving
Richard a break for trying to use what I consider to be quite an
elegant solution.

 

[Default User]

Keith Thompson wrote:

It's not an easy problem to solve. Perhaps you might consider giving
Richard a break for trying to use what I consider to be quite an
elegant solution.

Hmmmm, no.



Brian

 

[jameskuyper]

Richard Heathfield wrote:
[OT]

Default User said:


No, it isn't,

Yes, it is. I understand and sympathize with the reasons why you don't
want to use the term American to describe my fellow citizens. However,
I can assure you that the overwhelming majoring of them are not even
aware of the issue, and most of them would not sympathize even if they
were aware. They would consider it insulting that you called us by any
name other than the "correct" one. They would be just as insulted as a
British citizen might be at being called an Englishman, if he wasn't
actually English (most Americans don't even know that such a thing is
even possible, much less understand why it might be considered
insulting). Also, for that particular alternative, many of us, myself
included, would wonder whether a pun somehow connected with the word
"insane" was intended.
[/OT]

 

[Default User]

Richard Heathfield wrote:

What offensive usage? What's offensive about the word? I don't
understand that at all.

Well Ricky, if you don't understand after what I've told you, I suppose
I won't able to explain it. I guess you could take it on faith.





Brian

 

[Keith Thompson]

Hmmmm, no.

You say you're offended by the term "Usanian". That is of course your
right. But I am now offended by your repeated whining about it,
especially since you appear to be claiming the right to be offended on
my behalf.

At the very least, please consider the possibility that people who use
the term are not being *deliberately* offensive.

Better yet, consider that you appear to be the *only* person who holds
this particular opinion, that you have not changed anyone's mind, that
you are not likely to do so in the future, and that *this has nothing
to do with C*. I request that you find another forum for your
complaints on this matter, perhaps private e-mail.

 

[Default User]

giving >> Richard a break for trying to use what I consider to be
quite an >> elegant solution.

You say you're offended by the term "Usanian". That is of course your
right. But I am now offended by your repeated whining about it,

Ok. And I'm offended by you being offended by my being offended. And so
on.

At the very least, please consider the possibility that people who use
the term are not being deliberately offensive.

I don't actually believe that. I believe it to be dig (minor and more
with sniggering humor than real malice) at Americans to use that term.
I don't for a minute believe that users of the term are bleeding their
hearts for the Costa Ricans and such shut out by the use of the term to
mean only those from the USA.

Certainly Mr. Heathfield is aware of my feelings on the matter.

Better yet, consider that you appear to be the only person who holds
this particular opinion

One of two, it would now seem, on this newsgroup.

that you have not changed anyone's mind, that
you are not likely to do so in the future, and that *this has nothing
to do with C*. I request that you find another forum for your
complaints on this matter, perhaps private e-mail.

Hmmmm, no. I'm done with it for this time, I think. Next time will be a
new time.




Brian

 

[Antoninus Twink]

You say you're offended by the term "Usanian". [snip]
*this has nothing to do with C*.

Hmmmm, no.

Hmmmm, yes.

I don't mind people discussing HeathField's eccentricities in this group
if they like - it's just the sheer damned hypocrisy that I can't stand.
The Loser and Kuyper and Heathfield are the first to scream "off topic"
at others, but somehow it's a different rule for them when they want to
go on for post after post about some petty idiosyncrasy of RJH.

At least Thomson is consistent in his narrow-minded approach to
"topicality".

 

[jameskuyper]

(e-mail address removed) said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:
[OT]

....
I accept that "American" is a correct description of citizens of the USA -
just as it is a correct description of Canadians, Colombians, Cubans, and
Chileans. Nevertheless, a more localised adjective is useful (just as it
is for Canadians, Colombians, Cubans, and Chileans). If "Usanian" is
offensive for some bizarre reason, fine, someone coin another word. (I did

Most of them see no reason to coin another word, because they see no
fault with the one they are currently using. The fact that you
disagree wouldn't matter to them.

....

I can't see how that would be an insult.


Ah, that would do it. But I don't see the parallel. I use the term
"Usanian" only to apply to those who are citizens of the USA. Those who
are not citizens of the USA have no grounds for being offended by the
term, since I'm not applying it to them. (And those who are, have no
grounds either, since there's nothing remotely offensive about it.)

There is an exact parallel: in both cases they would be objecting to
being called by a name that they considered to be incorrect. Whether
or not you agree that the name is incorrect, its perceived
incorrectness is precisely the reason they would consider it
offensive.
There is a difference, of course - many British citizens would object
to being call English for reasons in addition to it being an incorrect
term, based upon their own personal feelings about the English.
Obviously, that wouldn't be an issue with Usanian, because the average
US citizen has never even heard the term, and therefore has no
negative associations to connect with it.

I'm going to try to describe the views of a large diverse group of
people that I don't agree with. I'm going to simplify the description
by pretending that they can be characterized by a single point of
view. With that in mind, I think that point of view would be that
"America" and "American" are a noun and an adjective that each
uniquely refer to the United States of America, except when they occur
in combination with either "North" or "South", in which case the
combined phrase refers to a continent. "The Americas" is a noun phrase
refers to both continents; there is no adjective that refers to both
continents, and little need for one.

If I expected English to be a logical language, I might find that
confusing. Since it obviously isn't, I don't. While your point of view
might be more logical, in US dialects of English those terms are in
use with essentially the meanings listed above, far more often than
the word "Usanian", and that's likely to remain true indefinitely. All
I can say about the difference between those meanings and yours are
that you're speaking a different but closely related language from the
one that they are speaking, and that I'm fluent in both languages.

 

[jameskuyper]

Keith Thompson wrote: ....

One of two, it would now seem, on this newsgroup.

If you're referring to me, keep in mind that I don't share your point
of view, I merely expressed an understanding of it. In particular, I
do not believe that objections to the use of "America" as a synonym
for "USA" stem solely from malicious intent (though I am sure that
many people who do have malicious intent do in fact object to that
usage).

 

[Default User]

If you're referring to me, keep in mind that I don't share your point
of view, I merely expressed an understanding of it.

Fair enough. I'll stand alone then.





Brian

 

[Doug Miller]

What offensive usage? What's offensive about the word? I don't understand
that at all.

Fine - given that you live in the U.K., we'll refer to you henceforth as a Ukian.

 

[Doug Miller]

Understood. Nevertheless, to co-opt a term that describes the population of
a whole continent - nay, *two* whole continents - and apply it only to an
admittedly large minority of that population is self-aggrandising, and it
should not surprise us to learn that those who seek self-aggrandisement
are not going to be best pleased by the introduction of a term which
neutralises it.

You don't honestly believe that citizens of Canada, Mexico, or Brazil think of
themselves as "Americans", do you?

 

[Doug Miller]

Keith Thompson wrote:

I don't actually believe that. I believe it to be dig (minor and more
with sniggering humor than real malice) at Americans to use that term.
I don't for a minute believe that users of the term are bleeding their
hearts for the Costa Ricans and such shut out by the use of the term to
mean only those from the USA.

Moreover, once one has been informed that the use of a particular word,
phrase, etc. causes offense, to continue to use that word, phrase, etc. *is*
being deliberately offensive.

 

[Keith Thompson]

I think you have it completely wrong friend Richard. Over here in the
New World we identify with our nationality, not geography. No one over
here thinks of themselves in continental terms, North or South
American, rather in terms of our nationality. Canadian, Mexican,
Brazilian, Argentinian. And American because our nation is United
States of America.

'American' is not a correct description of Canadians or Chileans.

Do you speak for Canadians, Mexicans, Brazilians, and Argentinians?

You certainly don't speak for all citizens of the US.