Pedants

[jacob navia]

Dear pedantic user

What is a pedant?

According to dictionary.com you are:

1. a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of learning.
2. a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details.
3. a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard to
common sense.

I am very glad that this flag, done for people like you
works as expected.

My compiler system is not for pedants, so you can stop using it
and get a compiler that suits your pedantic needs. Many pedants
here (this group has a lot of them) will point you to their
favorite software.



--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[jacob navia]

Re: Pedants

jacob navia wrote:

Dear pedantic user
>
What is a pedant?
>
According to dictionary.com you are:
>
1. a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of learning.
2. a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details.
3. a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard to
common sense.
>
I am very glad that this flag, done for people like you
works as expected.
>
My compiler system is not for pedants, so you can stop using it
and get a compiler that suits your pedantic needs. Many pedants
here (this group has a lot of them) will point you to their
favorite software.
>
>
>

This message should have been sent to the
"Is pedantic a bad flag"
thread...

But anyway, forget it, it is not worth the effort

--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[vippstar@gmail.com]

Re: Pedants

On Jun 21, 1:19 pm, jacob navia <ja...@nospam.c omwrote:

jacob navia wrote:

Dear pedantic user

>

What is a pedant?

>

According to dictionary.com you are:

>

1. a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of learning.
2. a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details.
3. a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard to
common sense.

>

I am very glad that this flag, done for people like you
works as expected.

>

My compiler system is not for pedants, so you can stop using it
and get a compiler that suits your pedantic needs. Many pedants
here (this group has a lot of them) will point you to their
favorite software.

>
This message should have been sent to the
"Is pedantic a bad flag"
thread...
>
But anyway, forget it, it is not worth the effort

I think the person who made the thread is on purpose making threads
about bugs with little importance in your compiler system.
But it would be wiser to ignore the bait and just fix the bugs.

[Tor Rustad]

Re: Pedants

jacob navia skrev:

My compiler system is not for pedants, so you can stop using it
and get a compiler that suits your pedantic needs. Many pedants
here (this group has a lot of them) will point you to their
favorite software.

I find it odd that a C compiler maintainer, care more for his HTML, than
his C code.

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32/ validate to HTML 4.01 Strict!:

Congratulations

The document located at <http://www.cs.virginia .edu/~lcc-win32/ was
checked and found to be valid HTML 4.01 Strict. This means that the
resource in question identified itself as "HTML 4.01 Strict" and that we
successfully performed a formal validation using an SGML or XML Parser
(depending on the markup language used).
"valid" Icon(s) on your Web page

To show your readers that you have taken the care to create an
interoperable Web page, you may display this icon on any page that
validates. Here is the HTML you could use to add this icon to your Web
page:


--
Tor <bwzcab@wvtqvm. vw | tr i-za-h a-z>

[Richard Heathfield]

Re: Pedants

jacob navia said:

Dear pedantic user
>
What is a pedant?
>
According to dictionary.com you are:
>
1. a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of learning.
2. a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details.
3. a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard to
common sense.

Note that dictionary.com is non-normative.

In comp.lang.c, the word "pedant" tends to be used to describe someone who
cares about getting it right, by someone who doesn't.

In that sense, you are using it correctly.

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[CBFalconer]

Re: Pedants

jacob navia wrote:

>
Dear pedantic user
>
What is a pedant?
>
According to dictionary.com you are:
>
1. a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of
learning.
2. a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details.
3. a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard
to common sense.
>
I am very glad that this flag, done for people like you
works as expected.
>
My compiler system is not for pedants, so you can stop using it
and get a compiler that suits your pedantic needs. Many pedants
here (this group has a lot of them) will point you to their
favorite software.

Excellent. Very amusing.

However, we need to point out that the pedantic beast is not the
probrammer, but the compiler. That poor compiler is stolidly
insisting that the code it compiles be written to match the demands
of the C standard. This has the side-effect of ensuring that the
code actually performs as desired. In most cases this matches the
conscious desires of the programmer.

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


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

[jacob navia]

Re: Pedants

CBFalconer wrote:

jacob navia wrote:

>Dear pedantic user
>>
>What is a pedant?
>>
>According to dictionary.com you are:
>>
>1. a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of
> learning.
>2. a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details.
>3. a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard
> to common sense.
>>
>I am very glad that this flag, done for people like you
>works as expected.
>>
>My compiler system is not for pedants, so you can stop using it
>and get a compiler that suits your pedantic needs. Many pedants
>here (this group has a lot of them) will point you to their
>favorite software.

>
Excellent. Very amusing.
>
However, we need to point out that the pedantic beast is not the
probrammer, but the compiler. That poor compiler is stolidly
insisting that the code it compiles be written to match the demands
of the C standard. This has the side-effect of ensuring that the
code actually performs as desired. In most cases this matches the
conscious desires of the programmer.
>

Yes yes Mr PEDANT.

Obviously it suffices to conform to ISO C and your
program will "perform as desired". Of course.


3. a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard
to common sense.


--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[jacob navia]

Re: Pedants

Richard Heathfield wrote:

jacob navia said:
>

>Dear pedantic user
>>
>What is a pedant?
>>
>According to dictionary.com you are:
>>
>1. a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of learning.
>2. a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details.
>3. a person who adheres rigidly to book knowledge without regard to
>common sense.

>
Note that dictionary.com is non-normative.
>
In comp.lang.c, the word "pedant" tends to be used to describe someone who
cares about getting it right, by someone who doesn't.
>
In that sense, you are using it correctly.
>
<snip>
>

1. a person who makes an excessive or inappropriate display of learning.
2. a person who overemphasizes rules or minor details.


--
jacob navia
jacob at jacob point remcomp point fr
logiciels/informatique

http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~lcc-win32

[Ben Bacarisse]

Re: Pedants

jacob navia <jacob@nospam.c omwrites:

Dear pedantic user

Dear Jacob

What is a pedant?

What is the -pedantic flag? As far as I can see you don't document
the use of it. As such, you can hardly have faced an easier bug to
fix -- just report "bad flag" and ignore it. Of course, if you
intended it to do something then you have a bigger problem.

Rather than getting hot under the collar about it, I think the users
of your compiler would be better served by a simple statement of
intent: accepting the flag is either a simple bug (which you can fix
in about a minute) or you do intend to offer some sort of more
rigorous checking mode and you plan to get it working soon. Would it
not have been simpler just to say which is the case?

--
Ben.

[Joachim Schmitz]

Re: Pedants

Ben Bacarisse wrote:

jacob navia <jacob@nospam.c omwrites:
>

>Dear pedantic user

>
Dear Jacob
>

>What is a pedant?

>
What is the -pedantic flag? As far as I can see you don't document
the use of it. As such, you can hardly have faced an easier bug to
fix -- just report "bad flag" and ignore it. Of course, if you
intended it to do something then you have a bigger problem.
>
Rather than getting hot under the collar about it, I think the users
of your compiler would be better served by a simple statement of
intent: accepting the flag is either a simple bug (which you can fix
in about a minute) or you do intend to offer some sort of more
rigorous checking mode and you plan to get it working soon. Would it
not have been simpler just to say which is the case?

Some simple rules when dealing with Jacob:

1. Don't attack Jacob, he takes it as personal offense
2. Don't criticize Jajob, he takes it as an attack, see 1.
3. Don't criticise any software Jacob developed, he takes it as personal
criticism, see 2.
4. Don't report bugs in software Jacob developed, he takes it as criticism,
see, 3.

In any case he'll feel personnally offended by any of the above mentioned
things. On top of that:

5. Better don't reply to anything Jacob writes, if there is the slightest
possibility that it might be interpreted in 2 ways, one of which may
possible offending, he'll for sure pick that interpretation and go balistic.
6. If you did reply to Jacob, don't fell offended, when he goes balistic and
calls you a liar for no good reason, this is his normal behavoir, just
ignore it, it's better for your health
7. Never ever expect Jacob ot appologize for any offense he did to you, so
far it never ever happened. Saves you from a disappointement , and is better
for your health.

This should really be added to the CLC FAQ.

Sad, but apparently true...

Bye, Jojo

[Richard Heathfield]

Re: Pedants

Joachim Schmitz said:

<snip>

Some simple rules when dealing with Jacob:
>
1. Don't attack Jacob, he takes it as personal offense
2. Don't criticize Jajob, he takes it as an attack, see 1.
3. Don't criticise any software Jacob developed, he takes it as personal
criticism, see 2.
4. Don't report bugs in software Jacob developed, he takes it as
criticism, see, 3.

<etc snipped>

Some simple rules when dealing with critics:

1. If they're criticising your C code, listen to them, make sure they're
right, and - if they are - fix the code.
2. Don't forget to thank them for educating them.
3. If you can't stand your code being criticised, don't write any.

Jacob Navia is not immune to criticism just because he doesn't know how to
handle it properly. One day, he will learn that criticism is good and
useful. Until then, his rants and raves will no doubt continue, but so
what?

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[Joachim Schmitz]

Re: Pedants

Richard Heathfield wrote:

Some simple rules when dealing with critics:
>
1. If they're criticising your C code, listen to them, make sure
they're right, and - if they are - fix the code.

Guess you meant "make sure _whether_ they are right", otherwise you may need
to introduce bugs just to make them being right 8-)

2. Don't forget to thank them for educating them.

guess you meant: "educating _you_"

3. If you can't stand your code being criticised, don't write any.

guess you mean: "don't _publish_ any"

Jacob Navia is not immune to criticism just because he doesn't know
how to handle it properly. One day, he will learn that criticism is
good and useful.

hope dies last, doesn't it?

Bye, Jojo

[Richard]

Re: Pedants

"Joachim Schmitz" <nospam.jojo@sc hmitz-digital.dewrite s:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>Some simple rules when dealing with critics:
>>
>1. If they're criticising your C code, listen to them, make sure
>they're right, and - if they are - fix the code.

Guess you meant "make sure _whether_ they are right", otherwise you may need
to introduce bugs just to make them being right 8-)
>

>2. Don't forget to thank them for educating them.

guess you meant: "educating _you_"
>

>3. If you can't stand your code being criticised, don't write any.

guess you mean: "don't _publish_ any"
>

>Jacob Navia is not immune to criticism just because he doesn't know
>how to handle it properly. One day, he will learn that criticism is
>good and useful.

hope dies last, doesn't it?
>
Bye, Jojo

Smashing job there of being a pedant over Heathfield's pompous pedantry,
advice giving and general lording it.

[Richard Heathfield]

Re: Pedants

Joachim Schmitz said:

Richard Heathfield wrote:

>Some simple rules when dealing with critics:
>>
>1. If they're criticising your C code, listen to them, make sure
>they're right, and - if they are - fix the code.

Guess you meant "make sure _whether_ they are right", otherwise you may
need to introduce bugs just to make them being right 8-)

I presume you meant "be right", rather than "being right". :-)

>2. Don't forget to thank them for educating them.

guess you meant: "educating _you_"

I did, yes. Thanks.

>

>3. If you can't stand your code being criticised, don't write any.

guess you mean: "don't _publish_ any"

No, I meant "don't write any". Because if you write some code, you'll want
to write some more (programming is very more-ish), and then you'll write
even more, and sooner or later you'll get to the point where you think
you're pretty good, and then some day you'll want to show someone your
stuff. And then they'll criticise it. And that would be just awful, right?

>Jacob Navia is not immune to criticism just because he doesn't know
>how to handle it properly. One day, he will learn that criticism is
>good and useful.

hope dies last, doesn't it?

As Doctor Johnson said of a second marriage, "it is the triumph of hope
over experience".

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk >
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999

[santosh]

Re: Pedants

jacob navia wrote:

CBFalconer wrote:

<snip>

Yes yes Mr PEDANT.

[ ... ]

Why not answer to the post that started all this jacob? If not to "new
to c" (another anonymous "win-lcc troll" I suppose, though they could
be genuine), then at least to the group at large, many of whose lurkers
might well be using win-lcc. Are the "error" messages claimed by the OP
correct? Is this a bug or feature of win-lcc? Does it accept
the '-pedantic' flag? If not, why does it not print a "Unknown command
option" diagnostic?