On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 02:57:34PM +0100, Hans Vogelsberger wrote:
> Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> >Could this thread please move to off-topic discussions?
>
> That is why I never read or post to the German user list: the
> pedantic people over there try to put everything really interesting
> into the off
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 14:57:34 +0100, Hans Vogelsberger
wrote:
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Could this thread please move to off-topic discussions?
That is why I never read or post to the German user list: the pedantic
people over there try to put everything really interesting into the
offtopic gar
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
Could this thread please move to off-topic discussions?
That is why I never read or post to the German user list: the pedantic
people over there try to put everything really interesting into the
offtopic garbage can.
Hans Vogelsberger
--
Dieser Account aktzeptiert nur
Sorry, John. Sent to you personally in error. I just clicked "reply".
On Saturday 26 January 2013 23:53:32 John Hasler wrote:
> > ...only English is acceptable on this list. People do occasionally
> > post here in other languages, but they are in error in so doing.
>
> They are not in error: th
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 02:55:05AM +0100, berenger.mo...@neutralite.org wrote:
>
> Le 27.01.2013 00:53, John Hasler a écrit :
> >>...only English is acceptable on this list. People do occasionally
> >>post here in other languages, but they are in error in so doing.
> >
> >They are not in error: t
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 10:44:51 +0100, Thierry Chatelet
wrote:
No, I guess most of the people writing in their native
language on this list do it because they have subscribed
to this list and the one in their language, and they make
an error. it happen to me both ways, french o
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 12:21:02 +0100, Lisi Reisz
wrote:
On Sunday 27 January 2013 09:11:46 Thierry Chatelet wrote:
The Sunday 27 January 2013 09:50:43, Tony van der Hoff wrote :
> On 27/01/13 00:53, John Hasler wrote:
> >> ...only English is acceptable on this list. People do occasionally
> >
On Sunday 27 January 2013 09:11:46 Thierry Chatelet wrote:
> The Sunday 27 January 2013 09:50:43, Tony van der Hoff wrote :
> > On 27/01/13 00:53, John Hasler wrote:
> > >> ...only English is acceptable on this list. People do occasionally
> > >> post here in other languages, but they are in error
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 10:44:51 +0100, Thierry Chatelet
wrote:
No, I guess most of the people writing in their native language on this
list do it because they have subscribed to this list and the one in
their language, and they make an error. it happen to me both ways,
french on the english l
The Sunday 27 January 2013 10:23:47, Ralf Mardorf wrote :
> On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 10:11:46 +0100, Thierry Chatelet
>
> wrote:
> > The Sunday 27 January 2013 09:50:43, Tony van der Hoff wrote :
> >> On 27/01/13 00:53, John Hasler wrote:
> >> >> ...only English is acceptable on this list. People do
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 10:11:46 +0100, Thierry Chatelet
wrote:
The Sunday 27 January 2013 09:50:43, Tony van der Hoff wrote :
On 27/01/13 00:53, John Hasler wrote:
>> ...only English is acceptable on this list. People do occasionally
>> post here in other languages, but they are in error in so
On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 09:50:43 +0100, Tony van der Hoff
wrote:
On 27/01/13 00:53, John Hasler wrote:
...only English is acceptable on this list. People do occasionally
post here in other languages, but they are in error in so doing.
They are not in error: there is no rule against it.
Rubbis
The Sunday 27 January 2013 09:50:43, Tony van der Hoff wrote :
> On 27/01/13 00:53, John Hasler wrote:
> >> ...only English is acceptable on this list. People do occasionally
> >> post here in other languages, but they are in error in so doing.
> >
> > They are not in error: there is no rule agai
On 27/01/13 00:53, John Hasler wrote:
>> ...only English is acceptable on this list. People do occasionally
>> post here in other languages, but they are in error in so doing.
>
> They are not in error: there is no rule against it.
Rubbish: At http://www.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Le 27.01.2013 00:53, John Hasler a écrit :
...only English is acceptable on this list. People do occasionally
post here in other languages, but they are in error in so doing.
They are not in error: there is no rule against it. However, they
are
not likely to get satisfactory results. Post
> ...only English is acceptable on this list. People do occasionally
> post here in other languages, but they are in error in so doing.
They are not in error: there is no rule against it. However, they are
not likely to get satisfactory results. Posting in a major European
language will usually
On Saturday 26 January 2013 20:19:17 Thore wrote:
> The part is a little bit confuse right.
> I ment that i think that it is strange to make a list everybody can
> write in every language.
> only small groups understand the question.
There is no such list, so far as I know. This list is, as I men
Hi,
Dňa Sat, 26 Jan 2013 21:19:17 +0100 Thore napísal:
> I ment that i think that it is strange to make a list everybody can
> write in every language.
Nikdy by som sa neprihlásil do takéhoto ML, pretože nechcem dostávať
kopu emailov vjazykoch, ktorým nerozumiem.
The rows above are the exampl
The Saturday 26 January 2013 21:19:17, Thore wrote :
> >> Thore
>
> The question with the spanish list wasn't a real question.
> The part is a little bit confuse right.
> I ment that i think that it is strange to make a list everybody can
> write in every language.
> only small groups understand t
On 01/26/2013 03:19 PM, Thore wrote:
Am 26.01.2013 20:26, schrieb Lisi Reisz:
On Saturday 26 January 2013 15:48:05 Thore wrote:
Hello,
often here are some non-english questions.
In the list description this is an international list --> english.
Yes, it is an international Anglophone list.
Is
Am 26.01.2013 20:26, schrieb Lisi Reisz:
On Saturday 26 January 2013 15:48:05 Thore wrote:
Hello,
often here are some non-english questions.
In the list description this is an international list --> english.
Yes, it is an international Anglophone list.
Isn't there a spanish list?
Yes, there
On Saturday 26 January 2013 15:48:05 Thore wrote:
> Hello,
> often here are some non-english questions.
> In the list description this is an international list --> english.
Yes, it is an international Anglophone list.
> Isn't there a spanish list?
Yes, there is. See:
http://www.debian.org/Maili
On Sb, 26 ian 13, 16:48:05, Thore wrote:
> Hello,
> often here are some non-english questions.
> In the list description this is an international list --> english.
> Isn't there a spanish list?
> I don't have really a problem, but I wonder wether here is an open
> language list it doesn't make a se
On 01/26/2013 01:48 PM, Thore wrote:
> Hello,
> often here are some non-english questions.
> In the list description this is an international list --> english.
> Isn't there a spanish list?
>
Sure there is: http://lists.debian.org/debian-user-spanish/
And many other languages too: http://lists.de
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 3:48 PM, Thore wrote:
> In the list description this is an international list --> english.
> Isn't there a spanish list?
Search, you'll find it.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas..
Hello,
often here are some non-english questions.
In the list description this is an international list --> english.
Isn't there a spanish list?
I don't have really a problem, but I wonder wether here is an open
language list it doesn't make a sence.
I can't understand it. I think there would be
Tony van der Hoff wrote:
...>>
I think he meant what he said. There is a nasty usage developing in
English (in the UK, at least) for "their" singular, to denote "he or
she". I have resisted it so far.
Actually, it's not just developing (recently developed)--apparently
it first appeared decades
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 06:14:34PM +0100, rjc wrote:
> Personally it doesn't bother me as much as illeism.
We are not amused. :)
--
"If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people
who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the
oppressing." --- Malcolm X
On Fri, 18 May 2012 12:22:28 +0100, Lisi wrote in message
<201205181222.28673.lisi.re...@gmail.com>:
> I understand American English. I usually do not understand Scottish
..clearly, Kircaldian is a Scottish language, but is it an...
> English
...language? Yes, I have been there, I mean, Ita
On Friday 18 May 2012 10:06:37 Darac Marjal wrote:
> It is generally agreed that Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland speak
> the same English as England (being all part of the same country).
They are not part of the same country, we are four countries, and we do not
all speak the same version o
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 11:09:24PM +0100, Lisi wrote:
> On Thursday 17 May 2012 22:52:36 Kelly Clowers wrote:
> > I have no data for this, but I would be willing to bet that singular
> > they is in more widespread use in American English than any of
> > the invented words. Probably also more common
On 17/05/12 05:25 PM, Lisi wrote:
On Thursday 17 May 2012 20:52:36 Kelly Clowers wrote:
Unlike those (and similar invented things), "they" doesn't sound
horrible and ridiculously artificial.
To many of us, it does. It grates badly. I have no problem at all with
(s)he, I also contend that "it'
On Thursday 17 May 2012 22:52:36 Kelly Clowers wrote:
> I have no data for this, but I would be willing to bet that singular
> they is in more widespread use in American English than any of
> the invented words. Probably also more common than "it" for
> unknown-but-present gender.
Possibly! Don't
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Lisi wrote:
> On Thursday 17 May 2012 20:52:36 Kelly Clowers wrote:
>> Unlike those (and similar invented things), "they" doesn't sound
>> horrible and ridiculously artificial.
>
> To many of us, it does. It grates badly. I have no problem at all with
> (s)he, I
On Thursday 17 May 2012 20:52:36 Kelly Clowers wrote:
> Unlike those (and similar invented things), "they" doesn't sound
> horrible and ridiculously artificial.
To many of us, it does. It grates badly. I have no problem at all with
(s)he, I also contend that "it's she" is perfectly acceptable a
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 11:07 AM, keith wrote:
> On Thu, 17 May 2012 17:33:45 +0100
> Tony van der Hoff wrote:
>
>> It would be much better to originate a new word, such as "heshe", or
>> "shehe", and "hisher", instead of overloading an existing plural.
Unlike those (and similar invented things)
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 05:33:45PM +0100, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
> It would be much better to originate a new word, such as "heshe", or
> "shehe", and "hisher", instead of overloading an existing plural.
Egan proposed/used 've', 'ver', 'vim' etc. in the book "Diaspora". I
was never clear what ru
On Thu, 17 May 2012 17:33:45 +0100
Tony van der Hoff wrote:
> It would be much better to originate a new word, such as "heshe", or
> "shehe", and "hisher", instead of overloading an existing plural.
One does normally use 's/he'. :)
--
keith
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 05:33:45PM BST, Tony van der Hoff wrote:
> On 17/05/12 17:23, rjc wrote:
> > On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 04:59:40PM BST, Kelly Clowers wrote:
> >> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:05 AM, Gary Dale wrote:
> >>> On 17/05/12 03:48 AM, Panayiotis Karabassis wrote:
>
> On 17/05/2
On 17/05/12 17:23, rjc wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 04:59:40PM BST, Kelly Clowers wrote:
>> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:05 AM, Gary Dale wrote:
>>> On 17/05/12 03:48 AM, Panayiotis Karabassis wrote:
On 17/05/2012 06:20 πμ, Gary Dale wrote:
>
> I suspect that file recovery is hi
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 04:59:40PM BST, Kelly Clowers wrote:
> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:05 AM, Gary Dale wrote:
> > On 17/05/12 03:48 AM, Panayiotis Karabassis wrote:
> >>
> >> On 17/05/2012 06:20 πμ, Gary Dale wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I suspect that file recovery is his current priority.
> >>>
> >>>
>
On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 6:05 AM, Gary Dale wrote:
> On 17/05/12 03:48 AM, Panayiotis Karabassis wrote:
>>
>> On 17/05/2012 06:20 πμ, Gary Dale wrote:
>>>
>>> I suspect that file recovery is his current priority.
>>>
>>>
>> It's a "she". :-)
>>
> "It's"? Shouldn't that be "He's a she"? ;)
These d
Richard Cobbe wrote:
> C:
> int x;
>
> x = "foo";
>
> You'll get a type error here at compile time, for obvious reasons.
> Question: how can this be a type error if only variables have types?
> You need to realize that "foo" has type (const) char * before you can
> determine that you can
Lo, on Sunday, January 13, Erik Steffl did write:
> type is a propert of variable.
Not exclusively. Two counter-examples, one in C, and one in Scheme.
C:
int x;
x = "foo";
You'll get a type error here at compile time, for obvious reasons.
Question: how can this be a type error if on
dman wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 04:51:14PM -0800, Erik Steffl wrote:
> | dman wrote:
> | >
> | > On Sat, Jan 05, 2002 at 09:38:01PM -0800, Erik Steffl wrote:
> | > | dman wrote:
> | > ...
> | > | > In C/C++ there is an invariant on strings ("char*", which is
> | > | > essentially equivalen
On Mon, Jan 07, 2002 at 03:56:45PM -0600, Richard Cobbe wrote:
| Lo, on Monday, January 7, dman did write:
| > Have you read "The Hobbit"? Do you remember what Treebeard told Bilbo
| > about his name?
|
| (Actually it was _The Two Towers_, and it was Merry & Pippin, not Bilbo,
Oops. It's been
"Eric G. Miller" wrote:
...
> > merely a subset of them (0<=i > programming languages don't provide a mechanism to express this so
> > programmers approximate it with types that describe supersets of the
> > set they want. (this explains why I dislike java and its type system
> > so much; for C it
On Mon, 7 Jan 2002 11:27:10 -0500, dman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> When you say that, in C, something is an 'int', is it possible to have
> a bit pattern there that is not a valid 'int'? No. 'int' describes
> the set of all valid values and every possible bit pattern you can
> stick the
Lo, on Monday, January 7, dman did write:
> I've just come up with a good description of what a 'type' is :
> A "type" is the set of all valid values.
*DING*DING*DING*DING*DING*DING*
Got it in one. Types are sets of values. That's all. C, C++, and Java
provide a fairly limited language fo
On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 04:51:14PM -0800, Erik Steffl wrote:
| dman wrote:
| >
| > On Sat, Jan 05, 2002 at 09:38:01PM -0800, Erik Steffl wrote:
| > | dman wrote:
| > ...
| > | > In C/C++ there is an invariant on strings ("char*", which is
| > | > essentially equivalent to "char[]") that they end w
On Sun, 6 Jan 2002 16:48:31 -0500 (EST), William T Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, Eric G.Miller wrote:
>
> > is one of the reasons pointers to char are so common. However, there
> > is a little trick that's guaranteed to always work:
> >
> > struct foo {
> > size_
On Sun, Jan 06, 2002 at 04:48:24PM -0800, Eric G. Miller wrote:
| On Sun, 6 Jan 2002 16:48:31 -0500 (EST), William T Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
|
| > On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, Eric G.Miller wrote:
| >
| > > is one of the reasons pointers to char are so common. However, there
| > > is a little
dman wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jan 05, 2002 at 09:38:01PM -0800, Erik Steffl wrote:
> | dman wrote:
> ...
> | > In C/C++ there is an invariant on strings ("char*", which is
> | > essentially equivalent to "char[]") that they end with a NUL byte.
> |
> | no, that's not true.
>
> It is true. A type is
On Sun, 6 Jan 2002 16:48:31 -0500 (EST), William T Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, Eric G.Miller wrote:
>
> > is one of the reasons pointers to char are so common. However, there
> > is a little trick that's guaranteed to always work:
> >
> > struct foo {
> > size_
On Sat, 5 Jan 2002, Eric G.Miller wrote:
> is one of the reasons pointers to char are so common. However, there
> is a little trick that's guaranteed to always work:
>
> struct foo {
> size_t length;
> char str[1];
> };
>
> ...
>
> struct foo * str_to_foo(char *a)
> {
> size_t
On Sat, Jan 05, 2002 at 09:38:01PM -0800, Erik Steffl wrote:
| dman wrote:
...
| > In C/C++ there is an invariant on strings ("char*", which is
| > essentially equivalent to "char[]") that they end with a NUL byte.
|
| no, that's not true.
It is true. A type is more than the name a compiler gi
Lo, on Friday, January 4, David Jardine did write:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 05:34:00PM -0600, Richard Cobbe wrote:
> >
> > Yes, it *is* types. Remember the definition of type-safety:
> >
> > If an expression E is determined at compile time to have type T,
> > then evaluating E will hav
Lo, on Friday, January 4, David Teague did write:
> On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Richard Cobbe wrote:
>
> > Not in the general case, no.
> >
> > std::string *s = new string("foo");
> > std::string *s2 = s;
> >
> > delete s;
> >
> > If we assume a variant of C++ that extends delete to set it
dman wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 09:39:09PM -0600, Gary Turner wrote:
> | On Thu, 03 Jan 2002 17:34:00 -0600 (CST), Richard Cobbe wrote:
...
> | >char str[] = { 'b', 'a', 'd', ' ', 's', 't', 'r', 'i', 'n', 'g' };
> | >// note the lack of a terminating '\0'!
> | >cout << str;
...
On Fri, 04 Jan 2002 14:28:46 -0500, dman wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 09:39:09PM -0600, Gary Turner wrote:
>| On Thu, 03 Jan 2002 17:34:00 -0600 (CST), Richard Cobbe wrote:
>| >
>| >Lo, on Thursday, January 3, Erik Steffl did write:
>| >
>| >> what's the difference? the point is you can assign
On Fri, Jan 04, 2002 at 11:50:04PM -0600, Gary Turner wrote:
| On Fri, 04 Jan 2002 14:28:46 -0500, dman wrote:
| >On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 09:39:09PM -0600, Gary Turner wrote:
| >| On Thu, 03 Jan 2002 17:34:00 -0600 (CST), Richard Cobbe wrote:
| >| >Lo, on Thursday, January 3, Erik Steffl did write:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2002 23:50:04 -0600, Gary Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> >He did define a string. In C++ there are 3 ways of defining a string
> >(in C there are 2). There is "char[]", "char*" and "std::string".
> Isn't 'char*' redundant, since an array var is a pointer by definition?
On Fri, 4 Jan 2002 20:17:08 -0500, dman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 08:43:55AM -0800, Craig Dickson wrote:
> | dman wrote:
> |
> | > However the thing to remember about macros is that they are textual
> | > substituation. It is effectively the same thing as writing the
>
dman wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 09:10:56PM -0800, Erik Steffl wrote:
> | Richard Cobbe wrote:
> | >
> | > Lo, on Thursday, January 3, Erik Steffl did write:
> | >
> | > > what's the difference? the point is you can assign almost anything to
> | > > anything, and yet there is no segfault -
Gary Turner wrote:
>
> On Fri, 04 Jan 2002 14:28:46 -0500, dman wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 09:39:09PM -0600, Gary Turner wrote:
> >| On Thu, 03 Jan 2002 17:34:00 -0600 (CST), Richard Cobbe wrote:
> >| >
> >| >Lo, on Thursday, January 3, Erik Steffl did write:
> >| >
> >| >> what's the di
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 08:43:55AM -0800, Craig Dickson wrote:
| dman wrote:
|
| > However the thing to remember about macros is that they are textual
| > substituation. It is effectively the same thing as writing the
| > assignment yourself.
|
| So?
The point there was that it isn't a feature
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 09:10:56PM -0800, Erik Steffl wrote:
| Richard Cobbe wrote:
| >
| > Lo, on Thursday, January 3, Erik Steffl did write:
| >
| > > what's the difference? the point is you can assign almost anything to
| > > anything, and yet there is no segfault - i.e. the strength of types
On Fri, 04 Jan 2002 14:28:46 -0500, dman wrote:
>On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 09:39:09PM -0600, Gary Turner wrote:
>| On Thu, 03 Jan 2002 17:34:00 -0600 (CST), Richard Cobbe wrote:
>| >
>| >Lo, on Thursday, January 3, Erik Steffl did write:
>| >
>| >> what's the difference? the point is you can assign
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 09:39:09PM -0600, Gary Turner wrote:
| On Thu, 03 Jan 2002 17:34:00 -0600 (CST), Richard Cobbe wrote:
| >
| >Lo, on Thursday, January 3, Erik Steffl did write:
| >
| >> what's the difference? the point is you can assign almost anything to
| >> anything, and yet there is no s
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002, Richard Cobbe wrote:
> Lo, on Thursday, January 3, William T Wilson did write:
>
> Not in the general case, no.
>
> std::string *s = new string("foo");
> std::string *s2 = s;
>
> delete s;
>
> If we assume a variant of C++ that extends delete to set its argument
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 05:34:00PM -0600, Richard Cobbe wrote:
>
> Yes, it *is* types. Remember the definition of type-safety:
>
> If an expression E is determined at compile time to have type T,
> then evaluating E will have one of two results:
>
> 1) The value of E is a valid
Richard Cobbe wrote:
>
> Lo, on Thursday, January 3, Erik Steffl did write:
>
> > what's the difference? the point is you can assign almost anything to
> > anything, and yet there is no segfault - i.e. the strength of types has
> > nothing (sort of) to do with segfaults... the resource allocation
On Thu, 03 Jan 2002 17:34:00 -0600 (CST), Richard Cobbe wrote:
>
>Lo, on Thursday, January 3, Erik Steffl did write:
>
>> what's the difference? the point is you can assign almost anything to
>> anything, and yet there is no segfault - i.e. the strength of types has
>> nothing (sort of) to do with
Phil Beder wrote:
...
> I wish I was a good enough programmer to contribute to this great project.
> Maybe one day when I understand more about Linux I could write a more user
> friendly help interface with clear syntax, option, and flag usage.
by that time you'll swear by man pages! :-))
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002, Phil Beder wrote:
> Thank you!!
>
> The diversity of point of view and depth of knowledge of the participants
> of this group is truly phenomenal. A simple question (in essence "where
> should I start") yielded me not only an interesting variety of response to
> that questio
Thank you!!
The diversity of point of view and depth of knowledge of the participants
of this group is truly phenomenal. A simple question (in essence "where
should I start") yielded me not only an interesting variety of response to
that question, but a road map, complete with pitfalls and milest
Lo, on Thursday, January 3, Erik Steffl did write:
> what's the difference? the point is you can assign almost anything to
> anything, and yet there is no segfault - i.e. the strength of types has
> nothing (sort of) to do with segfaults... the resource allocation is
> crucial...
Type safety (plu
Richard Cobbe wrote:
>
> Lo, on Thursday, January 3, William T Wilson did write:
>
> > On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Richard Cobbe wrote:
> >
> > > I'll agree that the two are related; in fact, I'd go so far as to say
> > > that if a language supports dynamic memory allocation and type-safety,
> > > it *ha
Lo, on Thursday, January 3, William T Wilson did write:
> On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Richard Cobbe wrote:
>
> > I'll agree that the two are related; in fact, I'd go so far as to say
> > that if a language supports dynamic memory allocation and type-safety,
> > it *has* to have some sort of automatic sto
dman wrote:
> However the thing to remember about macros is that they are textual
> substituation. It is effectively the same thing as writing the
> assignment yourself.
So? You could say the same of C++ templates, but that doesn't mean they
aren't useful. You can't even use the "code bloat" arg
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 07:04:38AM -0800, Eric G. Miller wrote:
| On Thu, 3 Jan 2002 09:31:16 -0500, dman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| > However the thing to remember about macros is that they are textual
| > substituation. It is effectively the same thing as writing the
| > assignment yourself.
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002 09:31:16 -0500, dman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> | > If you wrote a wrapper around free() that took a pointer to a pointer
> | > you _could_ then assign NULL to the second pointer, but that, of
> | > course, assumes that inside free() you have a valid pointer to
> | > de
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 05:01:50AM -0800, Eric G. Miller wrote:
| On Thu, 3 Jan 2002 07:22:59 -0500, dman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| > On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 12:19:25AM -0500, William T Wilson wrote:
| > | On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Richard Cobbe wrote:
| > |
| > | > I'll agree that the two are rel
On Thu, 3 Jan 2002 07:22:59 -0500, dman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 12:19:25AM -0500, William T Wilson wrote:
> | On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Richard Cobbe wrote:
> |
> | > I'll agree that the two are related; in fact, I'd go so far as to say
> | > that if a language supports dyn
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 12:19:25AM -0500, William T Wilson wrote:
| On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Richard Cobbe wrote:
|
| > I'll agree that the two are related; in fact, I'd go so far as to say
| > that if a language supports dynamic memory allocation and type-safety,
| > it *has* to have some sort of auto
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 01:33:29AM -0500, Michael P. Soulier wrote:
| On 02/01/02 Richard Cobbe did speaketh:
|
| > > > Perl does have strong types, but they don't really correspond to the
| > > > types that most people are used to thinking of. Perl's types are
|
| Personally, I wouldn't call Pe
Richard Cobbe wrote:
>
> Lo, on Wednesday, January 2, Erik Steffl did write:
>
> > Richard Cobbe wrote:
> > >
> > > Lo, on Monday, December 31, Erik Steffl did write:
> > >
> > > Perl does have strong types, but they don't really correspond to the
> > > types that most people are used to thinking
On 02/01/02 Richard Cobbe did speaketh:
> > > Perl does have strong types, but they don't really correspond to the
> > > types that most people are used to thinking of. Perl's types are
Personally, I wouldn't call Perl strongly-typed at all. I code all day
in Perl, and I love it, but I also know
On Wed, 2 Jan 2002, Richard Cobbe wrote:
> I'll agree that the two are related; in fact, I'd go so far as to say
> that if a language supports dynamic memory allocation and type-safety,
> it *has* to have some sort of automatic storage management system.
I don't think that necessarily follows; a
Lo, on Wednesday, January 2, Erik Steffl did write:
> Richard Cobbe wrote:
> >
> > Lo, on Monday, December 31, Erik Steffl did write:
> >
> > Perl does have strong types, but they don't really correspond to the
> > types that most people are used to thinking of. Perl's types are
> >
> > *
Lo, on Wednesday, January 2, Ben Collins did write:
> Just because in C it can cause a segfault doesn't mean the other
> languages are any better.
No, it doesn't. However, IMNSHO, the fact that C and C++ have many
*more* undefined constructs that other languages does mean that the
other language
On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 09:44:17PM -0600, Richard Cobbe wrote:
>
> Lo, on Tuesday, January 1, Ben Collins did write:
>
> > On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 10:12:09AM -0600, Richard Cobbe wrote:
> > >
> > > > Secondly, you can make this mistake with any language that allows
> > > > references (perl, pyth
on Wed, 02 Jan 2002 12:43:56AM -0800, Erik Steffl insinuated:
> Richard Cobbe wrote:
> >
> > Perl does have strong types, but they don't really correspond to the
> > types that most people are used to thinking of. Perl's types are
> >
> > * scalars (no real distinction between strings, numbe
William T Wilson wrote:
>
> On Mon, 31 Dec 2001, Erik Steffl wrote:
>
> > consider perl which doesn't have strong types but it's quite
> > impossible to make it segfault and C++ on the other side which is
>
> That is true but it doesn't mean that type safety won't prevent it
> also. Consider
Richard Cobbe wrote:
>
> Lo, on Monday, December 31, Erik Steffl did write:
>
> > "Eric G. Miller" wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 31 Dec 2001 13:46:15 -0800, Erik Steffl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ...
> > > > it's the resource allocation that's important, not types. garbage
> > > > collectors are generally
On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 09:39:18PM -0600, Richard Cobbe wrote:
| Lo, on Tuesday, January 1, dman did write:
|
| > On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 10:34:25AM -0600, Richard Cobbe wrote:
| > | Lo, on Tuesday, January 1, dman did write:
| > |
| > | > The strength and staticness of typing are two independent
Lo, on Tuesday, January 1, Ben Collins did write:
> On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 10:12:09AM -0600, Richard Cobbe wrote:
> >
> > > Secondly, you can make this mistake with any language that allows
> > > references (perl, python, and java all allow it). Just replace free()
> > > with some other assignme
Lo, on Tuesday, January 1, dman did write:
> On Tue, Jan 01, 2002 at 10:34:25AM -0600, Richard Cobbe wrote:
> | Lo, on Tuesday, January 1, dman did write:
> |
> | > The strength and staticness of typing are two independent properties.
> |
> | Also agreed.
>
> Cool, I'm glad you know this stuff
William, Richard, and all:
Stroustrup has said that if you find you have to cast, (much) your
design is flawed.
--David Teague
On Tue, 1 Jan 2002, William T Wilson wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Jan 2002, Richard Cobbe wrote:
>
> > > | Casting you can't really get away from nor do you really need to. I
On Tue, 1 Jan 2002, Richard Cobbe wrote:
> > | Casting you can't really get away from nor do you really need to. In fact
> > | the more strongly typed the language is, the more casting you have to do.
> >
> > This statement is incorrect.
>
> Agreed.
I suppose I will agree as well, I was not me
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
