Re: OT: Apology
 

Steve Zimmerman wrote:

> I'm such an ass....I'm sorry for my inappropriate posts
> regarding learning C from Linux. I'm new to email and
> I've discovered it brings out a side of me that I don't like:
> an asshole side!

A true asshole would never admit to it.

Re: OT: Apology
 

E. Robert Tisdale wrote:

> Steve Zimmerman wrote:
>
>> I'm such an ass....I'm sorry for my inappropriate posts
>> regarding learning C from Linux. I'm new to email and
>> I've discovered it brings out a side of me that I don't like:
>> an asshole side!
>
>
> A true asshole would never admit to it.
>

I didn't mean me, I meant you. You'd better brush up on
the standard C streams: 0 for stdin, 1 for stdout, 2 for stderr;
my apology was in stderr; the fact that you are an asshole
is in stdex (standard existents).

Re: OT: Apology
 

Steve Zimmerman <stevetux@sonic.net> wrote:

> I didn't mean me, I meant you. You'd better brush up on
> the standard C streams: 0 for stdin, 1 for stdout, 2 for stderr;

And where, in the Standard, do you read that these numbers are
associated in any way whatsoever with those streams? More to the point,
where in the Standard are _any_ numbers associated with _any_ FILE *s?

Richard

Re: OT: Apology
 

Steve Zimmerman wrote:

> E. Robert Tisdale wrote:

>> A true asshole would never admit to it.
>>
>
> I didn't mean me, I meant you. You'd better brush up on
> the standard C streams: 0 for stdin, 1 for stdout, 2 for stderr;
> my apology was in stderr; the fact that you are an asshole
> is in stdex (standard existents).

While I agree with you about E. Robert Tisdale, in this instance you are
wrong about C. There is nothing in C associating those integers with
the pre-defined streams. The FILE * type is opaque, and there is
nothing to be said about the contents of the pointed-to structure or
about how they might be tied to any OS or hardware implementation
without going outside the scope of the language.