tldr
On 11/6/13, Alexander Huemer wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 09:38:35PM +0100, Alexander Huemer wrote:
>> P.S. I passionately hate people who top-post, don't give enough
>> details and cannot say hi or bye in an email.
>
> Well, this escalated quickly.
> Let's forget about this hi or bye th
* Alexander S. [2013-11-07 04:27:26 +0400]:
> Seriously, simple parametric types wouldn't hurt C. Not at all. No
> need for that automatic pointer conversion, additional parameters to
> sort() and alike, and such. (I'm going to make a confession, I really
> think C would benefit from C++ templates
2013/11/6 Dmitrij D. Czarkoff :
> Alexander S. wrote:
>>
>>The implicit conversion removal is a good example of how much C is
>>reliant on a weak type system. They have to break it in C++, at least
>>partially, and imo, weak type systems are just bad taste.
> Indeed they are in high level languages
> Asshole vs. reality [was: Re: [dev] Question about arg.h]
I should have never asked...
On Tue, Nov 05, 2013 at 09:38:35PM +0100, Alexander Huemer wrote:
> P.S. I passionately hate people who top-post, don't give enough
> details and cannot say hi or bye in an email.
Well, this escalated quickly.
Let's forget about this hi or bye thing.
Top-posting though completely ruins a conversa
Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote:
>> What does it make you feel that I do not append a salutation and closing
>> to this e-mail? Does it bother you in any way? If so, why? If not, why
>> should I do so?
>
>This is not twitter.
He has a point, and this discussion is related to usage of this
hiro wrote:
> You're so deep.
I agree with you on implicit "hi" and "bye" in mailing lists but please
don't fucking bot quote. And if gmail's fucking online shit doesn't
allow anything else then don't fucking use gmail's fucking online shit.
Thanks.
You're so deep.
On 11/6/13, Christoph Lohmann <2...@r-36.net> wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 17:48:22 +0100 Chris Down wrote:
>> On 2013-11-06 06:38:23 +0100, Christoph Lohmann wrote:
>> > You have nothing to say, I guess.
>>
>> What does it make you feel that I do not append a salut
Greetings.
On Wed, 06 Nov 2013 17:48:22 +0100 Chris Down wrote:
> On 2013-11-06 06:38:23 +0100, Christoph Lohmann wrote:
> > You have nothing to say, I guess.
>
> What does it make you feel that I do not append a salutation and closing
> to this e-mail? Does it bother you in any way? If so, why?
On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 2:27 PM, sin wrote:
> ok?
In my opinion, it's better to remove it, indeed. It's useless.
ok?
>From 33b70705440016efa2e1a6728f07222e3180cac9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: sin
Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2013 13:22:13 +
Subject: [PATCH] No need to use USED() in arg.h for sbase
Tested on Linux and OpenBSD (with gcc and pcc).
---
arg.h | 7 +--
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(
Alexander S. wrote:
>
>The implicit conversion removal is a good example of how much C is
>reliant on a weak type system. They have to break it in C++, at least
>partially, and imo, weak type systems are just bad taste.
Indeed they are in high level languages. C is a low level language, and its
t
Chris Down wrote:
>On 2013-11-06 06:38:23 +0100, Christoph Lohmann wrote:
>> You have nothing to say, I guess.
>
>What does it make you feel that I do not append a salutation and
>closing
>to this e-mail? Does it bother you in any way? If so, why? If not, why
>should I do so?
I'm puzzled too. For
I really enjoy this mailing list, because discussions about random
topics result in a debate about something completely irrelevant.
2013/11/5 Markus Wichmann :
>> if something was invented in the era of insufficient computing power,
>> it does make it more clunky to use.
> True. C's dynamic memory management is proof of that.
Yes, and I believe they got it about right in Go. (They got it
mathematically right in Rust, but using
15 matches
Mail list logo
