Stylistic questions on UNIX C coding.
in [Unix Programming]
|
Prev: integer
Next: shared memory question
From: Seebs on 7 Mar 2010 17:14 On 2010-03-07, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nospam(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > On 5 Mar, 18:26, Seebs <usenet-nos...(a)seebs.net> wrote: >> On 2010-03-05, Richard Heathfield <r...(a)see.sig.invalid> wrote: >> Actually, I'm not exactly talking about English. �I'm talking about the >> underlying cognitive structures English (and every other language) maps to. > ah! A disciple of Chompsky.I didn't know it had been proven beyond > doubt that such a Deep Structure existed It hasn't been, but if you can find a counterexample to the claim that people generally distinguish between topic and comment, I'd love to see it. > to write lisp you pretty well have to have support from your editor. I > seem to nest stuff deeper than most people- maybe this is something > computer programmers tend to do but lisp easily busts my internal > stack. Yeah. I had some of that trouble with it. >> For me, swapping the "natural" order of a comparison (I expect the "topic" >> to be first) is one extra layer, similar to an indirection, extra set of >> parentheses, or whatever. �I don't know how common that is, but I'm pretty >> sure it's not going to change in the forseeable future. > I'll suffer the pain of an extra translation stage if I think it buys > me much. In this case I'd rather have the test the "right" way round. In my case, I have a lot more bugs from cognitive stack overflows than I have ever had from mistakenly assigning things in tests, so it makes sense for me to pick the style that doesn't make the big problem dramatically bigger. :) -s -- Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
From: Seebs on 7 Mar 2010 17:16 On 2010-03-07, Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat(a)mssgmbh.com> wrote: > Don't try to play 'stupid' with me. You understood me quite well, have > 'surprisingly' completely ignored my text in order to construct a > straw man This raises a question that, while not strictly topical, I find fascinating. Have you found a set of circumstances in which declaring that you know what other people think, and they are lying, has ever produced any kind of positive or desireable outcome? Do you in fact have the telepathic ability you've claimed, or are you just dogmatically proclaiming what someone else actually thought without any kind of evidence or support? -s -- Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
From: Rainer Weikusat on 7 Mar 2010 17:25 Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat(a)mssgmbh.com> writes: > Keith Thompson <kst-u(a)mib.org> writes: [...] >> The most >> common form of loop for iterating *up* through an array is: >> >> for (i = 0; i < N; i ++) [ >> ... array[i] ... >> } >> >> oversteps the upper bound of the array. > > So, your reasoning goes roughly "well, ok, it is nonsense, but that's > what we always do". I should have read this more carefully :->. You are actually already here (voluntarily) misinterpreting my statement, since none of the increments which are supposed to be performed by the code quoted above are technically useless, meaning, what I called 'overstepping the loop counter' does not occur here. You are just hoping that a careless reader (like me, for instance) takes your statement at face value, without recognizing that you are already writing about a completely different case.
From: Rainer Weikusat on 7 Mar 2010 17:36 Seebs <usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net> writes: > On 2010-03-07, Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat(a)mssgmbh.com> wrote: >> Don't try to play 'stupid' with me. You understood me quite well, have >> 'surprisingly' completely ignored my text in order to construct a >> straw man > > This raises a question that, while not strictly topical, I find fascinating. > > Have you found a set of circumstances in which declaring that you know what > other people think, and they are lying, has ever produced any kind of positive > or desireable outcome? I count your nice declaration as one, for example, since it communicates more about you than about me.
From: Seebs on 7 Mar 2010 20:06
On 2010-03-07, Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat(a)mssgmbh.com> wrote: > Seebs <usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net> writes: >> On 2010-03-07, Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat(a)mssgmbh.com> wrote: >>> Don't try to play 'stupid' with me. You understood me quite well, have >>> 'surprisingly' completely ignored my text in order to construct a >>> straw man >> Have you found a set of circumstances in which declaring that you know what >> other people think, and they are lying, has ever produced any kind of positive >> or desireable outcome? > I count your nice declaration as one, for example, since it > communicates more about you than about me. That's non-responsive. You asserted that someone else understood what you meant, but you have done nothing to show that this is true; instead, you just accused someone of lying, without any evidence, and honestly, I don't see why you would expect that someone would have understood you "quite well" and then "played stupid", when it seems much more likely that someone misunderstood you. It's Usenet. People *constantly* misunderstand each other. I have not in general found that it is productive or rewarding to accuse people of lying on the basis that they claim to have misunderstood me, because for the most part, it turns out to be much more common that they actually misunderstood me. Similarly, out of the hundreds of times people have asserted that I knew something perfectly well, it has been true perhaps once or twice. Usually, what's at issue is that I don't agree with them and they'd prefer to use a violent and derisive response than acknowledge the possibility of a genuine disagreement. -s -- Copyright 2010, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-nospam(a)seebs.net http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated! |