Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > FAQ incorrect?

Reply
Thread Tools

FAQ incorrect?

 
 
Default User
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-05-2006
Keith Thompson wrote:

> Frederick Gotham <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> > The only way to deal with trolls is to limit your reaction to
> > reminding others not to respond to trolls.

>
> Yes, we know.
>
> Usually someone posts a single followup to anyone who responds to the
> troll in question, and that generally works reasonably well. Starting
> a new thread gives the troll more attention.


Not actually a new thread, at least for most of us. It's a change in
subject in an existing thread.



Brian
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Frederick Gotham
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-05-2006
Default User posted:

> Not actually a new thread, at least for most of us. It's a change in
> subject in an existing thread.



I just clicked "Reply", and then changed what was written in the "Subject"
textbox... didn't think it would have an effect on threading?

--

Frederick Gotham
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Al Balmer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-05-2006
On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 13:59:04 GMT, Frederick Gotham
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Default User posted:
>
>> Not actually a new thread, at least for most of us. It's a change in
>> subject in an existing thread.

>
>
>I just clicked "Reply", and then changed what was written in the "Subject"
>textbox... didn't think it would have an effect on threading?


Depends on how people choose to display threads. My reader can start a
new thread when the subject changes, or not. Usually, I find it useful
to start a new thread, since the topic has changed.

--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ
 
Reply With Quote
 
Keith Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-05-2006
Frederick Gotham <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> Default User posted:
>> Not actually a new thread, at least for most of us. It's a change in
>> subject in an existing thread.


>
> I just clicked "Reply", and then changed what was written in the "Subject"
> textbox... didn't think it would have an effect on threading?


I had already read the previous articles in the thread, so my
newsreader didn't display them. My newsreader probably displayed your
article as continuation of the thread (I'm not sure how or whether it
distinguishes that), but since the subject header didn't start with
"Re:" I assumed it was a new thread. I had to check the headers to
verify that it was a followup to something else.

Changing the subject header in a followup us usually not a good idea;
if you do so, it's usually a good idea to refer to the previous
subject ("New Subject (was: Old Subject)".

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://users.sdsc.edu/~kst>
We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Default User
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-05-2006
Al Balmer wrote:

> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 13:59:04 GMT, Frederick Gotham
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > Default User posted:
> >
> >> Not actually a new thread, at least for most of us. It's a change

> in >> subject in an existing thread.
> >
> >
> > I just clicked "Reply", and then changed what was written in the
> > "Subject" textbox... didn't think it would have an effect on
> > threading?

>
> Depends on how people choose to display threads. My reader can start a
> new thread when the subject changes, or not. Usually, I find it useful
> to start a new thread, since the topic has changed.



You can view it that way, but it's not actually a new thread. By that I
mean the poster did not create a new thread, but used the reply
mechanism with a change in subject. The references will be there to
link it to the previous messages in the thread.




Brian
 
Reply With Quote
 
Al Balmer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2006
On 5 Aug 2006 19:42:43 GMT, "Default User" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Al Balmer wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 05 Aug 2006 13:59:04 GMT, Frederick Gotham
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> > Default User posted:
>> >
>> >> Not actually a new thread, at least for most of us. It's a change

>> in >> subject in an existing thread.
>> >
>> >
>> > I just clicked "Reply", and then changed what was written in the
>> > "Subject" textbox... didn't think it would have an effect on
>> > threading?

>>
>> Depends on how people choose to display threads. My reader can start a
>> new thread when the subject changes, or not. Usually, I find it useful
>> to start a new thread, since the topic has changed.

>
>
>You can view it that way, but it's not actually a new thread.


If I choose to view it that way, it is. As far as I'm concerned, if I
tell Agent to start a new thread on a subject change, there's no
discernible difference (I don't display the references header.)

> By that I
>mean the poster did not create a new thread, but used the reply
>mechanism with a change in subject.


Yes, we know. He said that.

> The references will be there to
>link it to the previous messages in the thread.
>

We know that, too.

--
Al Balmer
Sun City, AZ
 
Reply With Quote
 
Default User
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2006
Al Balmer wrote:

> On 5 Aug 2006 19:42:43 GMT, "Default User" <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:


> > You can view it that way, but it's not actually a new thread.

>
> If I choose to view it that way, it is. As far as I'm concerned, if I
> tell Agent to start a new thread on a subject change, there's no
> discernible difference (I don't display the references header.)


But that's not the normal definition of a new thread.

> > By that I
> > mean the poster did not create a new thread, but used the reply
> > mechanism with a change in subject.

>
> Yes, we know. He said that.


Ok.


Brian

 
Reply With Quote
 
CBFalconer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2006
Frederick Gotham wrote:
> Default User posted:
>
>> Not actually a new thread, at least for most of us. It's a change
>> in subject in an existing thread.

>
> I just clicked "Reply", and then changed what was written in the
> "Subject" textbox... didn't think it would have an effect on
> threading?


It doesn't, in proper news readers that use the 'references' header
field correctly. Some stupid systems, such as Google, ignore that
field and depend on the subject header alone.

--
Chuck F ((E-Mail Removed)) ((E-Mail Removed))
Available for consulting/temporary embedded and systems.
<http://cbfalconer.home.att.net> USE maineline address!

 
Reply With Quote
 
ena8t8si@yahoo.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-07-2006

Andrey Tarasevich wrote:
> nroberts wrote:
> > ...
> > although they can be written in a variety of ways. The second parameter
> > may be declared char *argv[] (see question 6.4), you can use any names
> > for the two parameters, and you can use old-style syntax:
> >
> > int main()
> >
> > int main(argc, argv)
> > int argc; char **argv;
> >
> > ......... http://c-faq.com/ansi/maindecl.html
> >
> > The way this is worded it makes one think that "int main()" is a valid
> > declaration of main. However, main is allowed to only take two params
> > of (int, char **) or 0, correct? In C is not an empty param list an
> > "unspecified" param list? In that case "int main()" would be invalid
> > as it matches neither of the standard signatures.

>
> The way it is worded (seeing the "old-style syntax" mentioned and so on) makes
> it clear that it is specifically referring to the declaration of 'main', which
> is a part of _definition_ of 'main'. When the empty parameter list '()' is used
> in a definition, it always means 'no parameters' (equivalent to '(void)'), not
> 'unspecified parameters'.
>
> > ...
> > It also has "int main()" but has no reasoning for its validity except
> > ref to the std I don't have access to. Is that truely a valid
> > signature? I always thought you _needed_ (void).
> > ...

>
> Only in the declaration that is not a definition. In a definition '()' and
> '(void)' mean the same thing - no parameters.


Not quite the same thing. Only the definition with (void)
serves as a prototype.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Rod Pemberton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-08-2006

"Keith Thompson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> If you'll put together a coherent and consistent set of topicality
> guidelines, let us know and we might consider it (no guarantees of
> course)


Why are you so paternalistic? Nobody cares what you have to say or what
rules you want to impose upon us. You post enough on your own, that you
should have your own newsgroup... And, you could block me, Kenny, Jacob,
etc. or anyone you're to immature to deal with without comment...


Rod Pemberton


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FAQ or not FAQ? =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Juli=E1n?= Albo C++ 28 01-15-2007 04:33 AM
FAQ/FAQ notes site makeover Peter Michaux Javascript 22 11-27-2006 01:55 AM
FAQ - How do I direct someone to this FAQ? FAQ server Javascript 1 08-04-2006 10:13 PM
Upgrading to high speed, FAQ? David Wireless Networking 4 11-09-2004 08:43 PM
[de] Update of FAQ in German/FAQ auf Deutsch ueberarbeitet Josef 'Jupp' Schugt Ruby 0 09-22-2003 08:56 PM



Advertisments