On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, Cameron Simpson wrote:
On 16Nov2009 10:54, Rick Stevens wrote:
| Another example is that a null pointer (or the value "NUL") is not
| necessarily zero, only that it is guaranteed to not point at any valid
| datum.
Actually, it requires it to behave like 0 in an arithmetic
On 16Nov2009 10:54, Rick Stevens wrote:
| Another example is that a null pointer (or the value "NUL") is not
| necessarily zero, only that it is guaranteed to not point at any valid
| datum.
Actually, it requires it to behave like 0 in an arithmetic context.
But it _doesn't_ require it to be stor
On 11/16/2009 01:59 PM, Frank Cox wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:54:45 -0800
> Rick Stevens wrote:
>
>
>> C allows quite a bit of leeway to the compiler implementation.
>>
> Is the C Standard Library actually standard, then, or are there
> implementation differences there as well?
>
>
T
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, Les wrote:
Given that I have seen all kinds of effects in C code, but generally
from compilers that are not "ISO standard" what ever that really means
(ISO is not cast in stone by any means either when it comes to almost
all things).
The standards of interest are written d
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 14:06 -0800, Rick Stevens wrote:
> On 11/16/2009 01:06 PM, Steven W. Orr wrote:
> > On 11/16/09 13:54, quoth Rick Stevens:
> >> On 11/14/2009 01:55 PM, Frank Cox wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 14:50:57 -0500
> >>> Steven W. Orr wrote:
> >>>
> There's nothing wrong with
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, Steven W. Orr wrote:
On 11/16/09 13:54, quoth Rick Stevens:
On 11/14/2009 01:55 PM, Frank Cox wrote:
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 14:50:57 -0500
Steven W. Orr wrote:
There's nothing wrong with perl having all kinds of perldoc pages.
But perl
comes from one place. C, OTOH could co
On 11/16/2009 01:06 PM, Steven W. Orr wrote:
On 11/16/09 13:54, quoth Rick Stevens:
On 11/14/2009 01:55 PM, Frank Cox wrote:
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 14:50:57 -0500
Steven W. Orr wrote:
There's nothing wrong with perl having all kinds of perldoc pages.
But perl
comes from one place. C, OTOH could
On 11/16/2009 04:06 PM, Steven W. Orr wrote:
> On 11/16/09 13:54, quoth Rick Stevens:
>> On 11/14/2009 01:55 PM, Frank Cox wrote:
>>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 14:50:57 -0500
>>> Steven W. Orr wrote:
>>>
There's nothing wrong with perl having all kinds of perldoc pages.
But perl
comes from
On 11/16/09 13:54, quoth Rick Stevens:
> On 11/14/2009 01:55 PM, Frank Cox wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 14:50:57 -0500
>> Steven W. Orr wrote:
>>
>>> There's nothing wrong with perl having all kinds of perldoc pages.
>>> But perl
>>> comes from one place. C, OTOH could come from lots of places bes
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009, Rick Stevens wrote:
On 11/14/2009 01:55 PM, Frank Cox wrote:
As C is an ISO standard, I sincerely doubt there would be any difference in
the
syntax and behaviour of the keywords between C compilers on any Unix-like
operating system.
Incorrect. C, for example, does not
On Mon, 2009-11-16 at 12:59 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:54:45 -0800
> Rick Stevens wrote:
>
> > C allows quite a bit of leeway to the compiler implementation.
>
> Is the C Standard Library actually standard, then, or are there
> implementation differences there as well?
man
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:54:45 -0800
Rick Stevens wrote:
> C allows quite a bit of leeway to the compiler implementation.
Is the C Standard Library actually standard, then, or are there
implementation differences there as well?
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
On 11/14/2009 01:55 PM, Frank Cox wrote:
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 14:50:57 -0500
Steven W. Orr wrote:
There's nothing wrong with perl having all kinds of perldoc pages. But perl
comes from one place. C, OTOH could come from lots of places besides FSF and
the switch statement in gcc may not be exactl
On 11/14/2009 12:44 PM, Mark Perew wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 5:46 AM, Ed Greshko <mailto:ed.gres...@greshko.com>> wrote:>
>
> There is even no "man 3 switch" on RHEL4. When was the last time you
>
>
> For what it's worth ... there is no &q
On Sat, 2009-11-14 at 12:54 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 14:15:22 -0430
> Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>
> > Moreover, IMHO documenting language keywords
> > via man pages as they are traditionally understood would be next to
> > useless.
>
> *blink*
>
> "man switch" tells me all
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 14:50:57 -0500
Steven W. Orr wrote:
> There's nothing wrong with perl having all kinds of perldoc pages. But perl
> comes from one place. C, OTOH could come from lots of places besides FSF and
> the switch statement in gcc may not be exactly the same as the switch
> statement i
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 14:14:27 -0600,
Mikkel wrote:
> You mean you couldn't read the cards by the punches? (7 bit ASCII)
> You could also do the same with paper tape.
I knew some of the punch codes by sight, but it certainly isn't what I would
do when debugging.
--
fedora-list mailing list
2009/11/14 Patrick O'Callaghan :
> On Sat, 2009-11-14 at 12:16 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 11:43:53 -0600
>> Chris Adams wrote:
>>
>> > Would you expect to see individual man pages for "if", "?:", "void",
>> > etc.?
>>
>> Actually yes, I would. Those are fundamental parts of the
Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 14:50:57 -0500,
> "Steven W. Orr" wrote:
>> Or my personal favorite, in Fortran.
>>
>> DO 10 I = 1,100
>
> Not to mention the easy to make typo
> DO 10 I = 1.100
>
> It can take quite a while to figure that one out the first time i
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 14:50:57 -0500,
"Steven W. Orr" wrote:
> Or my personal favorite, in Fortran.
>
> DO 10 I = 1,100
Not to mention the easy to make typo
DO 10 I = 1.100
It can take quite a while to figure that one out the first time it happens
to you. Especially reading cr
t we have a DO loop and the scanner gets to return a DO token. And
don't forget that the I and the 1 can each be huge function calls and
multi-dimensional array references that could go on for many many cards.
Yes, we live in amazing times where there is no man 3 switch. Somebody should
DO10I=1,1
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:29:32 -0600
Chris Adams wrote:
> I don't think any other language has individual man pages for
> syntactical elements. Otherwise, you end up with massive conflicts; who
> gets the man page for "{", "+", ";", etc.?
See what I just wrote to Patrick about the Tcl Built-In Com
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 14:15:22 -0430
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> Moreover, IMHO documenting language keywords
> via man pages as they are traditionally understood would be next to
> useless.
*blink*
"man switch" tells me all about the "TCL Built-In Command" called switch.
So the built-in TCL ke
On Sat, 2009-11-14 at 12:16 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 11:43:53 -0600
> Chris Adams wrote:
>
> > Would you expect to see individual man pages for "if", "?:", "void",
> > etc.?
>
> Actually yes, I would. Those are fundamental parts of the C language and
> should have the same m
On 11/14/09 13:16, quoth Frank Cox:
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 11:43:53 -0600
> Chris Adams wrote:
>
>> Would you expect to see individual man pages for "if", "?:", "void",
>> etc.?
>
> Actually yes, I would. Those are fundamental parts of the C language and
> should have the same man documentation a
Once upon a time, Frank Cox said:
> On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 11:43:53 -0600
> Chris Adams wrote:
> > Would you expect to see individual man pages for "if", "?:", "void",
> > etc.?
>
> Actually yes, I would. Those are fundamental parts of the C language and
> should have the same man documentation as
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 11:43:53 -0600
Chris Adams wrote:
> Would you expect to see individual man pages for "if", "?:", "void",
> etc.?
Actually yes, I would. Those are fundamental parts of the C language and
should have the same man documentation as the library functions.
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ M
On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 5:46 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:>
> There is even no "man 3 switch" on RHEL4. When was the last time you
>
For what it's worth ... there is no "man 3 switch" on NetBSD. I can check
AIX on Monday and report on that, too.
--
fedora-list mail
Once upon a time, Frank Cox said:
> I expected to see a write-up on the C switch statement. Similar to what I see
> with "man 3 strlen" and the like.
>
> Your statement indicates that keywords are not included in "man 3", so
> apparently that's why it's not there.
>
> It seems an odd choice to
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:46:03 +0800
Ed Greshko wrote:
> There is even no "man 3 switch" on RHEL4. When was the last time you
> saw it?
I'm pretty sure that I have never seen it. See my reply to Cameron immediately
prior to this one.
Again, it seems an odd choice for whoev
g for a library routine.
That's probably the answer to my question.
> What did you expect for man 3 switch?
I expected to see a write-up on the C switch statement. Similar to what I see
with "man 3 strlen" and the like.
Your statement indicates that keywords are not included in &qu
Frank Cox wrote:
> I just discovered that "man 3 switch" is missing.
>
> Is it supposed to be there or is there some reason for it to not be?
>
>
There is even no "man 3 switch" on RHEL4. When was the last time you
saw it?
--
Ask not what's inside y
On 14Nov2009 00:31, Frank Cox wrote:
| I just discovered that "man 3 switch" is missing.
| Is it supposed to be there or is there some reason for it to not be?
What was switch for? I wouldn't expect it to be a library routine
because "switch" is a C language keyword.
I just discovered that "man 3 switch" is missing.
Is it supposed to be there or is there some reason for it to not be?
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.c
34 matches
Mail list logo
