C standard question?

[Richard Tobin]

Re: C standard question?

In article <abb1ff15-45a2-40fb-aa0e-c7aa7149b81f@8g 2000hse.googleg roups.com>,
Tomás Ó hÉilidhe <toe@lavabit.co mwrote:

>I'm here to converse about C

The evidence suggests otherwise.

-- Richard
--
:wq

[lawrence.jones@siemens.com]

Re: C standard question?

Chris H <chris@phaedsys .orgwrote [re "char unsigned":

>
ISO C90 has been superseded several times. Is it still legal?

C90 has only been superseded once, although it has also been amended
(once) and corrected (twice). The superseding document (C99) has also
been corrected (thrice), but not amended.

Yes, it's still valid (it was never "illegal"); 6.7.2p2 still contains
the same text as C90 did.

-- Larry Jones

Why can't I ever build character in a Miami condo or a casino somewhere?
-- Calvin

[CBFalconer]

Re: C standard question?

Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote:

Jack Klein <jackkl...@spam cop.netwrote:
>

>I would have a hard time believing that any people in the world
>other than you write the ridiculous "char unsigned".

>
Have you taken an IQ test lately? Let's see if you can answer this
question:
>
Which two of these sentences convey the same information?
>
1) Today I saw a small dog beside the fence.
2) John takes sugar in his tea.
3) Beside the fence, I saw a small dog today.
4) Berlin is the capital of Germany.
>
If you're too mentally retarded to answer that question correctly
then you'll probably too imcompetent of a programmer to read other
people's code.

I think you should go off in some corner and reconsider your
attitude. After this I, and I suspect many more, are about || so
close to PLONKing you.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home .att.net>
Try the download section.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

[Flash Gordon]

Re: C standard question?

Tomás Ó hÉilidhe wrote, On 10/05/08 18:55:

On May 8, 4:35 am, Jack Klein <jackkl...@spam cop.netwrote:
>

>I would have a hard time believing that any people in the world other
>than you write the ridiculous "char unsigned".

<snip insulting material>

If you're too mentally retarded to answer that question correctly then
you'll probably too imcompetent of a programmer to read other people's
code.

It is not a question about whether people can understand it, it is a
question about what they can understand fastest. The brain is a truly
wonderful pattern matching system, and almost all C programmers brains
are trained to match against the pattern "unsigned char" rather than
"char unsigned". So by going against convention you are forcing people
to stop using the fast method of gaining the information and switch to a
far slower method. When you have to review a few thousand lines of code
written by someone else you will start to appreciate convention, and as
the amount of code goes up you will appreciate it more and more.

Oh, and if you want to discus C then insulting intelligent experienced
and even expert C programmers is not the best way to go about it.
--
Flash Gordon

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tom=E1s_=D3_h=C9ilidhe?=]

Re: C standard question?

On May 10, 11:55 pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.orgw rote:

I understand that you prefer "char unsigned" to "unsigned char", for
whatever reason.  I present this example, and my opinion of it, not
because I expect to convince you that I'm right and you're wrong, but
merely to help you to understand that those of us who do not share
your opinion are not idiots.

And you're welcome to express that view politely. It's a different
kettle of fish when you say that it's "ridiculous ", and keep harking
on about it as did Mr Klein.

[Keith Thompson]

Re: C standard question?

Tomás Ó hÉilidhe <toe@lavabit.co mwrites:

On May 10, 11:55 pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.orgw rote:

>I understand that you prefer "char unsigned" to "unsigned char", for
>whatever reason.  I present this example, and my opinion of it, not
>because I expect to convince you that I'm right and you're wrong, but
>merely to help you to understand that those of us who do not share
>your opinion are not idiots.

>
And you're welcome to express that view politely. It's a different
kettle of fish when you say that it's "ridiculous ", and keep harking
on about it as did Mr Klein.

"Ridiculous " is a matter of opinion. Personally, I agree that using
"char unsigned" rather than "unsigned char" is ridiculous.

Your reaction was extremely rude and unjustified by the provocation.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keit h) <kst-u@mib.org>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

[Joachim Schmitz]

Re: C standard question?

Keith Thompson wrote:

Tomás Ó hÉilidhe <toe@lavabit.co mwrites:

>On May 10, 11:55 pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.orgw rote:

>>I understand that you prefer "char unsigned" to "unsigned char", for
>>whatever reason. I present this example, and my opinion of it, not
>>because I expect to convince you that I'm right and you're wrong,
>>but merely to help you to understand that those of us who do not
>>share your opinion are not idiots.

>>
>And you're welcome to express that view politely. It's a different
>kettle of fish when you say that it's "ridiculous ", and keep harking
>on about it as did Mr Klein.

>
"Ridiculous " is a matter of opinion. Personally, I agree that using
"char unsigned" rather than "unsigned char" is ridiculous.
>
Your reaction was extremely rude and unjustified by the provocation.

Well, calling someone 'riduculous' shurely is offensive and far beond
voicing an opinion, so the reaction was by no means unjustified, but IMHO
too strong.
Being atacked by a knife doesn't justify launching a rocket...

Bye, Jojo

[pete]

Re: C standard question?

Joachim Schmitz wrote:

Keith Thompson wrote:

>Tomás Ó hÉilidhe <toe@lavabit.co mwrites:

>>On May 10, 11:55 pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.orgw rote:
>>>I understand that you prefer "char unsigned" to "unsigned char", for
>>>whatever reason. I present this example, and my opinion of it, not
>>>because I expect to convince you that I'm right and you're wrong,
>>>but merely to help you to understand that those of us who do not
>>>share your opinion are not idiots.
>>And you're welcome to express that view politely. It's a different
>>kettle of fish when you say that it's "ridiculous ", and keep harking
>>on about it as did Mr Klein.

>"Ridiculous " is a matter of opinion. Personally, I agree that using
>"char unsigned" rather than "unsigned char" is ridiculous.
>>
>Your reaction was extremely rude and unjustified by the provocation.

Well, calling someone 'riduculous' shurely is offensive and far beond
voicing an opinion, so the reaction was by no means unjustified, but IMHO
too strong.
Being atacked by a knife doesn't justify launching a rocket...

I write long unsigned instead of unsigned long.
I used to make the "%ul" mistake once in a while.
Now I don't.

--
pete

[Chris H]

Re: C standard question?

In message <op7hf5-cmk.ln1@jones.h omeip.net>, lawrence.jones@ siemens.com
writes

>Chris H <chris@phaedsys .orgwrote [re "char unsigned":

>>
>ISO C90 has been superseded several times. Is it still legal?

>
>C90 has only been superseded once, although it has also been amended
>(once) and corrected (twice). The superseding document (C99) has also
>been corrected (thrice), but not amended.
>
>Yes, it's still valid (it was never "illegal"); 6.7.2p2 still contains
>the same text as C90 did.

Thanks.

I have only eve seen one compiler that did it that way and they changed
to the unsigned char over a decade ago. I did scan through the standard
but missed the clause.


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Chris H]

Re: C standard question?

In message
<abb1ff15-45a2-40fb-aa0e-c7aa7149b81f@8g 2000hse.googleg roups.com>, Tomás
Ó hÉilidhe <toe@lavabit.co mwrites

>On May 10, 7:21 pm, Richard Heathfield <r...@see.sig.i nvalidwrote:
>

>And his killfile will not be the only one to which you've
>managed to gain entry with that masterly display of how not to be a
>diplomat.

>I'm here to converse about C, not deal with mentally retarded
>dickheads that are too stupid to get their head around a simple re-
>ordering of words.

I think you have just got yourself killfiled by the leading experts (I
hate that word :-) on this group. They have many years experience of
the language and some are on various C panels (ISO and others)

So you are unlikely to be able to discuss C with anyone on this NG who
knows what they are talking about until you change your identity and
attitude.


--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Spiros Bousbouras]

Re: C standard question?

On 8 May, 04:35, Jack Klein <jackkl...@spam cop.netwrote:

On Wed, 7 May 2008 13:23:50 -0700 (PDT), Tomás Ó hÉilidhe
<t...@lavabit.c omwrote in comp.lang.c:
>

On May 7, 8:20 pm, Eric Sosman <Eric.Sos...@su n.comwrote:

>

unsigned int ui = (unsigned int)uc << 24;

>

You wouldn't believe how many people do the likes of the following:

>

char unsigned uc1, uc2;

>
I would have a hard time believing that any people in the world other
than you write the ridiculous "char unsigned".

One Frederick Gotham who used to post here a lot
preferred "char unsigned", someone called it
ridiculous, then Frederick called that person fascist
and it went on from there quite unpleasantly for a
while. Did you miss all that ? Is Tomás Ó hÉilidhe
the same person as Frederick Gotham ?

Anyway I believe that "char unsigned" is harmless
and does not warrant an inflammatory and potentially
offensive comment as "ridiculous ". Especially if it's
the only comment in the post.

[Spiros Bousbouras]

Re: C standard question?

On 11 May, 09:40, "Joachim Schmitz" <nospam.j...@sc hmitz-digital.de>
wrote:

Keith Thompson wrote:

Tomás Ó hÉilidhe <t...@lavabit.c omwrites:

On May 10, 11:55 pm, Keith Thompson <ks...@mib.orgw rote:
>I understand that you prefer "char unsigned" to "unsigned char", for
>whatever reason. I present this example, and my opinion of it, not
>because I expect to convince you that I'm right and you're wrong,
>but merely to help you to understand that those of us who do not
>share your opinion are not idiots.

>

And you're welcome to express that view politely. It's a different
kettle of fish when you say that it's "ridiculous ", and keep harking
on about it as did Mr Klein.

>

"Ridiculous " is a matter of opinion. Personally, I agree that using
"char unsigned" rather than "unsigned char" is ridiculous.

>

Your reaction was extremely rude and unjustified by the provocation.

>
Well, calling someone 'riduculous' shurely is offensive and far beond
voicing an opinion, so the reaction was by no means unjustified, but IMHO
too strong.
Being atacked by a knife doesn't justify launching a rocket...

I completely agree. I hope we won't be seeing
recurring flame wars around the issue as it was
happening with Frederick Gotham for a while.

[Chris H]

Re: C standard question?

In message
<f4d865b0-d912-4a2c-8cf5-1ed5b8f97c69@26 g2000hsk.google groups.com>,
Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.c omwrites

>On 8 May, 04:35, Jack Klein <jackkl...@spam cop.netwrote:

>On Wed, 7 May 2008 13:23:50 -0700 (PDT), Tomás Ó hÉilidhe
><t...@lavabit. comwrote in comp.lang.c:
>>

On May 7, 8:20 pm, Eric Sosman <Eric.Sos...@su n.comwrote:

>>

unsigned int ui = (unsigned int)uc << 24;

>>

You wouldn't believe how many people do the likes of the following:

>>

char unsigned uc1, uc2;

>>
>I would have a hard time believing that any people in the world other
>than you write the ridiculous "char unsigned".

>
>One Frederick Gotham who used to post here a lot
>preferred "char unsigned", someone called it
>ridiculous, then Frederick called that person fascist
>and it went on from there quite unpleasantly for a
>while. Did you miss all that ? Is Tomás Ó hÉilidhe
>the same person as Frederick Gotham ?
>
>Anyway I believe that "char unsigned" is harmless
>and does not warrant an inflammatory and potentially
>offensive comment as "ridiculous ". Especially if it's
>the only comment in the post.

I would agree however it depends on the reaction of the person being
told that they are in a minority of 2 in a sample size of several
100,000.

Do compilers still accept char unsigned? Some used to but I bet many
don't now and Tomas does say he is trying to write fully portable code.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Harald van =?UTF-8?b?RMSzaw==?=]

Re: C standard question?

On Sun, 11 May 2008 13:47:08 +0100, Chris H wrote:

Do compilers still accept char unsigned?

Yes. You've been informed it's allowed in standard C already, but I've
tried six different compilers and none even issue any diagnostic for it by
default.

[Chris H]

Re: C standard question?

In message <b5e67$4826eee1 $541dfcd3$32244 @cache5.tilbu1. nb.home.nl>,
Harald van =?UTF-8?b?RMSzaw==?= <truedfx@gmail. comwrites

>On Sun, 11 May 2008 13:47:08 +0100, Chris H wrote:

>Do compilers still accept char unsigned?

>
>Yes. You've been informed it's allowed in standard C already,

Which is irrelevant. C99 is significant in not having been fully
implemented by any compilers bar 1 or 2 in the last decade. Just
because it is in the standard has no relevance on people implementing
it. Especially as no one is likely to use it.

but I've
>tried six different compilers and none even issue any diagnostic for it by
>default.

Fair enough.... it's just one of those things I have never tried in the
last 20 years.

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/