Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > How printf() works???????

Reply
Thread Tools

How printf() works???????

 
 
Richard Heathfield
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-07-2008
[Well, what an eye-opener. On the basis of his previous, helpful, reply, I
unplonked "Just Richard" on a whim, and look what I found...]

Richard said:

> santosh writes:


<snip>

>> The expression x < 30 will evaluate to 1 if x is less than 30 and zero
>> otherwise. Richard said the reverse, by mistake I'm sure.

>
> Getting something totally backwards is,of course, a mistake.


Yes.

> There is no evil intent in my correction.


Believe it or not, I believe you. It was an honest correction to an honest
mistake.

> Why you feel the need to confirm his
> "mistake" is very strange. Possibly you should inform Robbie to be less
> quick to tell people their compilers are broken and that they should get
> a new one?


And here you make a very reasonable point. It's better not to be hostile
(not something I always manage), but if you're determined to be hostile,
you'd better be very, very sure that you're right! It's a lot costlier
(blushes, etc) to apologise for an incorrect correction if that
"correction" was aggressive. (I am well aware of this from personal
experience, alas.)

> Which leads to the question "Why didn't you explain why Heathfield was
> wrong". And the answer is simple : I don't believe in treating people
> like idiots. Let them look and think the problem over themselves. They
> can always come back and say "you have me stumped", what is the issue?".


I kind of agree with this. When someone who I *know* ought to know better
misinterprets a statement and issues a misguided rejoinder (and if there
are no other responses in the feed that have caught the misguidedness), I
will generally say something like "how sure are you about that?" or "read
it again, <name>", or whatever. If it's someone I don't recognise, or whom
I think is unlikely to spot on re-reading the reason that their
"correction" is wrong, I am more likely to give a detailed explanation.

> A good C programmer and "team player" thinks for themselves. RH had said
> enough about the comparison expression for anyone with half a clue to
> see why he had made a mistake in his final analysis.


Yes. In fact, this was particularly unfortunate, because I was rather
pleased with my answer - not because it was difficult to write (it wasn't,
except for the getting-it-right part!), but because after posting it I
downloaded another bunch of articles, and all the other replies I saw
were, I felt, leaning (and in some cases positively *bending*) in the
direction of unfriendliness and unhelpfulness. I think that's a shame.

> But of course, giving credence and credit to other posters is becoming a
> rarer and rarer thing these days with posters like CBF riding in on
> their chargers at a moments notice.


Again, I am struggling to disagree with you here, and failing.

> People in clc are far too eager to see other people wrong so that they
> can score some clique points by being rude and obnoxious at the first
> possible point. See the races to post OT rejoinders for a good example -
> when they KNOW that Default User or CBF have already beaten them to it.


Well, I'm less sure about this. I think the first sentence is, alas,
correct. The second, I'm less sure about. Newsfeeds are of course
asynchronous, and we don't actually know what kinds of delays are involved
in other people's feeds, except when it's mind-numbingly obvious (eg
Shaggy or Chuck). In fact, Chuck's is a curious case - he seems to manage
to get the wrong end of the stick several hours or even days after
everyone else considers the thread to be played out.

> It's why I come here to be honest.


And this is the sad part. I know that you and I don't particularly see eye
to eye, but it strikes me that you could get a lot more out of clc if you
put a bit more /into/ it. If you could just increase the number of
articles you post where you actually contribute useful technical
information to those who seek it, I think it would make for a more
pleasant group for everyone. I am not so naive as to believe that this
would reduce the level of your "reg-baiting", which you seem to enjoy so
much, but it would increase the overall signal-noise ratio here, and that
can only be a good thing for everyone.

> It's fun to watch and relieves the
> boredom of a typical C programming day. And one learns something here -
> not always standard C related either. Fortunately there are more posters
> willing to "break topicality" and, err, talk about real C.


I know you might not believe this, but I'd actually like the group as a
whole to relax its topicality restrictions somewhat. Not *too* much - that
way lies chaos - but if we just dropped the bar a /little/, we would
perhaps be able to benefit from each other's platform-based experience.
Unfortunately, there is little sign of a shift in the group attitude
towards topicality - and I accept that (reluctantly, which is why I
sometimes cheat).

Bottom line: yes, this group /is/ too mean-spirited. Let's *all* try to
change that. Please?

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
santosh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-07-2008
Richard wrote:
> santosh <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> Robbie Hatley wrote:
>>> "Richard" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> Richard Heathfield <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:


<snip>

>>>> > x < 30 is a relational expression, and all expressions have
>>>> > values. Relational expressions have the value 0 if they're false,
>>>> > and 1 if they're true. So x < 30 will evaluate to 0 if x is less
>>>> > than 30, and 1 otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> It won't actually.
>>>
>>> How do you figure? It does in standard C. If it doesn't for you,
>>> then your compiler is broken and you should get a better one.

>>
>> The expression x < 30 will evaluate to 1 if x is less than 30 and
>> zero otherwise. Richard said the reverse, by mistake I'm sure.

>
> Getting something totally backwards is,of course, a mistake. There is
> no evil intent in my correction. Why you feel the need to confirm his
> "mistake" is very strange.


Because he did not spot RJH's error and therefore, could not understand
your correction.

> Possibly you should inform Robbie to be
> less quick to tell people their compilers are broken and that they
> should get a new one?


He misread RJH's erroneous sentence. Why blame him for it?

> Which leads to the question "Why didn't you explain why Heathfield was
> wrong". And the answer is simple : I don't believe in treating people
> like idiots. Let them look and think the problem over themselves. They
> can always come back and say "you have me stumped", what is the
> issue?".


Well in this case it has led to another bunch of substanceless posts
over a trivial error. Maybe we can stop now...

> A good C programmer and "team player" thinks for themselves. RH had
> said enough about the comparison expression for anyone with half a
> clue to see why he had made a mistake in his final analysis.


Yes. But Robbie Hatley misread that whole statement.

> But of course, giving credence and credit to other posters is becoming
> a rarer and rarer thing these days with posters like CBF riding in on
> their chargers at a moments notice.
>
> People in clc are far too eager to see other people wrong so that they
> can score some clique points by being rude and obnoxious at the first
> possible point. See the races to post OT rejoinders for a good example
> - when they KNOW that Default User or CBF have already beaten them to
> it.


I don't see much of this lately.

> It's why I come here to be honest. It's fun to watch and relieves the
> boredom of a typical C programming day. And one learns something here
> - not always standard C related either. Fortunately there are more
> posters willing to "break topicality" and, err, talk about real C.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-07-2008
santosh <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> Richard wrote:
>> santosh <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>> Robbie Hatley wrote:
>>>> "Richard" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> Richard Heathfield <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>
> <snip>
>
>>>>> > x < 30 is a relational expression, and all expressions have
>>>>> > values. Relational expressions have the value 0 if they're false,
>>>>> > and 1 if they're true. So x < 30 will evaluate to 0 if x is less
>>>>> > than 30, and 1 otherwise.
>>>>>
>>>>> It won't actually.
>>>>
>>>> How do you figure? It does in standard C. If it doesn't for you,
>>>> then your compiler is broken and you should get a better one.
>>>
>>> The expression x < 30 will evaluate to 1 if x is less than 30 and
>>> zero otherwise. Richard said the reverse, by mistake I'm sure.

>>
>> Getting something totally backwards is,of course, a mistake. There is
>> no evil intent in my correction. Why you feel the need to confirm his
>> "mistake" is very strange.

>
> Because he did not spot RJH's error and therefore, could not understand
> your correction.


So therefore, maybe he should post nothing? Did that cross your mind? he
waffled on about my broken compiler and its as clear as day he never
tried the code with his wonderful,all singing, all dancing compiler.

>
>> Possibly you should inform Robbie to be
>> less quick to tell people their compilers are broken and that they
>> should get a new one?

>
> He misread RJH's erroneous sentence. Why blame him for it?


You've gone to the dark side Santosh. I "blame" him for nothing. I am
merely pointing out that one should know what one is talking about before
slamming other posters and insulting their compiler ..... In this case
he didn't bother to, or was unable to, verify my statement. Regardless
of that he started on about standard C and my compiler being broken. I
didn't even need to compile anything to see the obvious mistake that
Heathfield made. See other post for reasons not to harp on about what
that mistake was - it was abundantly clear to any C programmer. Yes it
was a "mistake" but one worth pointing out as RH had gone to great
lengths to explain the boolean nature of the expression only to get it
180% wrong : a slip of course. I don't honestly believe that RH thinks
that 1<30 returns 0 for example. hence there was no malevolence, no
crowing in my reply. Merely "incorrect" or there abouts. Your need to
jump to RHs defence surprises me. There is no need.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-07-2008
Richard Heathfield <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> [Well, what an eye-opener. On the basis of his previous, helpful, reply, I
> unplonked "Just Richard" on a whim, and look what I found...]
>
> Richard said:
>
>> santosh writes:

>
> <snip>
>
>>> The expression x < 30 will evaluate to 1 if x is less than 30 and zero
>>> otherwise. Richard said the reverse, by mistake I'm sure.

>>
>> Getting something totally backwards is,of course, a mistake.

>
> Yes.
>
>> There is no evil intent in my correction.

>
> Believe it or not, I believe you. It was an honest correction to an honest
> mistake.


Yes.

>
>> Why you feel the need to confirm his
>> "mistake" is very strange. Possibly you should inform Robbie to be less
>> quick to tell people their compilers are broken and that they should get
>> a new one?

>
> And here you make a very reasonable point. It's better not to be
> hostile


I am a reasonable person. To be called "unreasonable" by some of the clc
regs here, confirms that to me.

> (not something I always manage), but if you're determined to be hostile,
> you'd better be very, very sure that you're right! It's a lot costlier
> (blushes, etc) to apologise for an incorrect correction if that
> "correction" was aggressive. (I am well aware of this from personal
> experience, alas.)


We all make mistakes. To err is human.

>
>> Which leads to the question "Why didn't you explain why Heathfield was
>> wrong". And the answer is simple : I don't believe in treating people
>> like idiots. Let them look and think the problem over themselves. They
>> can always come back and say "you have me stumped", what is the issue?".

>
> I kind of agree with this. When someone who I *know* ought to know better
> misinterprets a statement and issues a misguided rejoinder (and if there
> are no other responses in the feed that have caught the misguidedness), I
> will generally say something like "how sure are you about that?" or "read
> it again, <name>", or whatever. If it's someone I don't recognise, or whom
> I think is unlikely to spot on re-reading the reason that their
> "correction" is wrong, I am more likely to give a detailed explanation.
>
>> A good C programmer and "team player" thinks for themselves. RH had said
>> enough about the comparison expression for anyone with half a clue to
>> see why he had made a mistake in his final analysis.

>
> Yes. In fact, this was particularly unfortunate, because I was rather
> pleased with my answer - not because it was difficult to write (it wasn't,
> except for the getting-it-right part!), but because after posting it I
> downloaded another bunch of articles, and all the other replies I saw
> were, I felt, leaning (and in some cases positively *bending*) in the
> direction of unfriendliness and unhelpfulness. I think that's a shame.
>
>> But of course, giving credence and credit to other posters is becoming a
>> rarer and rarer thing these days with posters like CBF riding in on
>> their chargers at a moments notice.

>
> Again, I am struggling to disagree with you here, and failing.
>


Too many of the "clique" (and you are one) are too willing to be overly
forceful with your views IMO. Especially on topicality.

CBF, however, is just a waste of disk space IMO. He is wrong more often
than he is right. And he is downright rude and objectionable at his
best.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard Heathfield
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-07-2008
Richard said:

> Richard Heathfield <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>


<snip>

>
> Too many of the "clique" (and you are one)


I am? I had no idea. Is there a badge, or shouldn't I ask?

(But of course TINC.)

> are too willing to be overly
> forceful with your views IMO. Especially on topicality.


Actually, I'm *not* particularly forceful about topicality. There are some
things that are just Plain Old Off-Topic, and yes, I will sometimes point
this out (although not terribly often), but I'm rather less fussed about
clc Puritanism than most regular contributors to the group (and indeed
less fussed than I used to be). I would actually welcome a little more
latitude all round.

<snip>

--
Richard Heathfield <http://www.cpax.org.uk>
Email: -http://www. +rjh@
Google users: <http://www.cpax.org.uk/prg/writings/googly.php>
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
 
Reply With Quote
 
santosh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-07-2008
Richard wrote:

> santosh <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>> Richard wrote:
>>> santosh <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>> Robbie Hatley wrote:
>>>>> "Richard" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>> Richard Heathfield <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>>> > x < 30 is a relational expression, and all expressions have
>>>>>> > values. Relational expressions have the value 0 if they're
>>>>>> > false, and 1 if they're true. So x < 30 will evaluate to 0 if x
>>>>>> > is less than 30, and 1 otherwise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It won't actually.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you figure? It does in standard C. If it doesn't for you,
>>>>> then your compiler is broken and you should get a better one.
>>>>
>>>> The expression x < 30 will evaluate to 1 if x is less than 30 and
>>>> zero otherwise. Richard said the reverse, by mistake I'm sure.
>>>
>>> Getting something totally backwards is,of course, a mistake. There
>>> is no evil intent in my correction. Why you feel the need to confirm
>>> his "mistake" is very strange.

>>
>> Because he did not spot RJH's error and therefore, could not
>> understand your correction.

>
> So therefore, maybe he should post nothing? Did that cross your mind?


He misread RJH's statement and that is what I brought to his notice.
What he said to you about your compiler is beside the point and did not
strike me as being important enough to comment on.

> he waffled on about my broken compiler and its as clear as day he
> never tried the code with his wonderful,all singing, all dancing
> compiler.


OP's code was not relevant to spotting RJH's mistake. Compiling OP's
code (which would require some completion to make it compilable) would
do nothing towards spotting (or not spotting) RJH's typo.

So in this case debating about his compiler and your compiler are
irrelevant.

It's really simple:

1. RJH made a *genuine* mistake.
2. You made a *genuine* correction to his mistake.
3. Robbie Hatley misread RJH's statement so that he read what RJH had
meant to say, not what he wrote.
4. Therefore Robbie Hatley took your statement as correcting a (to him)
correct statement.
5. I pointed out to Robbie Hatley that he misunderstood your correction
because he had misread RJH's erroneous statement.
6. Robbie Hatley acknowledged his misreading and we thought everything
was done and dusted, but...
7. You have taken exception with my *well* *intentioned* correction of
Robbie Hatley's misunderstanding, saying that I should have instead
flamed him for a comment that was essentially irrelevant and beside the
point, and one that was moreover, aimed at you.
8. You have also responded (at least) twice to RJH about this whole mess
including also a tedious recap of your well known opinions about this
group.
9. Surprisingly, you have not yet responded to Robbie Hatley, the poster
who has apparently offended you with his remarks about your compiler,
instead choosing to snipe at posters whose only intention was to clear
up the misunderstanding that started this subthread and thus to get it
closed.

>>> Possibly you should inform Robbie to be
>>> less quick to tell people their compilers are broken and that they
>>> should get a new one?

>>
>> He misread RJH's erroneous sentence. Why blame him for it?

>
> You've gone to the dark side Santosh.


Mind explaining what you mean by this?

> I "blame" him for nothing. I am
> merely pointing out that one should know what one is talking about
> before slamming other posters and insulting their compiler ..... In
> this case he didn't bother to, or was unable to, verify my statement.


He (Robbie Hatley) did not bother to verify your statement for the
simple fact that he thought you were obviously wrong, since you were
apparently refuting a 100% correct statement by RJH. He missed the fact
that he had misread RJH mistake.

This sometimes happens. It's unfortunate and the whole subthread could
have closed down with my reply to Robbie Hatley and his response to me,
but now we are having a vigorous mud-slinging contest going on.

> Regardless of that he started on about standard C and my compiler
> being broken. I didn't even need to compile anything to see the
> obvious mistake that Heathfield made. See other post for reasons not
> to harp on about what that mistake was - it was abundantly clear to
> any C programmer.


Yes, but Robbie Hatley misread it. Which is what I pointed out to him,
carefully ignoring his other statement about your compiler since that
was not relevant, either to me or to this subthread.

> Yes it was a "mistake" but one worth pointing out as
> RH had gone to great lengths to explain the boolean nature of the
> expression only to get it 180% wrong : a slip of course. I don't
> honestly believe that RH thinks that 1<30 returns 0 for example. hence
> there was no malevolence, no crowing in my reply. Merely "incorrect"
> or there abouts.


Where did I imply that there was malevolence or crowing in your reply?

> Your need to jump to RHs defence surprises me. There is no need.


*sigh* Once more:

I did _not_ jump to RJH's defence. I jumped in to correct Robbie
Hatley's mistake. Can you make out the difference, or are you far too
biased against RJH that you see a correction to a post aimed at a post
that was a correction to a post by RJH, as a defence of RJH?

 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-07-2008
santosh <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> Richard wrote:
>
>> santosh <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>
>>> Richard wrote:
>>>> santosh <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>>> Robbie Hatley wrote:
>>>>>> "Richard" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>> Richard Heathfield <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>>>>> > x < 30 is a relational expression, and all expressions have
>>>>>>> > values. Relational expressions have the value 0 if they're
>>>>>>> > false, and 1 if they're true. So x < 30 will evaluate to 0 if x
>>>>>>> > is less than 30, and 1 otherwise.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It won't actually.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How do you figure? It does in standard C. If it doesn't for you,
>>>>>> then your compiler is broken and you should get a better one.
>>>>>
>>>>> The expression x < 30 will evaluate to 1 if x is less than 30 and
>>>>> zero otherwise. Richard said the reverse, by mistake I'm sure.
>>>>
>>>> Getting something totally backwards is,of course, a mistake. There
>>>> is no evil intent in my correction. Why you feel the need to confirm
>>>> his "mistake" is very strange.
>>>
>>> Because he did not spot RJH's error and therefore, could not
>>> understand your correction.

>>
>> So therefore, maybe he should post nothing? Did that cross your mind?

>
> He misread RJH's statement and that is what I brought to his notice.
> What he said to you about your compiler is beside the point and did not
> strike me as being important enough to comment on.


Are you joking? It was the WHOLE crux of things. He informed me that if
my compiler did not agree with RH then I needed a new one.

What is it with you and apologising for other peoples mistakes?

>
>> he waffled on about my broken compiler and its as clear as day he
>> never tried the code with his wonderful,all singing, all dancing
>> compiler.

>
> OP's code was not relevant to spotting RJH's mistake. Compiling OP's


Yes it was. RHs whole reply was based on explaining the OPs code.

> code (which would require some completion to make it compilable) would
> do nothing towards spotting (or not spotting) RJH's typo.


I commented on RHs English response not the code. It was not me who
brought compilers into it-

>
> So in this case debating about his compiler and your compiler are
> irrelevant.
>
> It's really simple:
>
> 1. RJH made a *genuine* mistake.


All mistakes are "genuine". or are trying so suggest he makes mistakes
on purpose. What are you trying to say here?

> 2. You made a *genuine* correction to his mistake.


I made a correction. Nothing "genuine" about it. It was a correct
correction.

> 3. Robbie Hatley misread RJH's statement so that he read what RJH had
> meant to say, not what he wrote.


He made a mistake. And your corrected him. No need for me to do so.

> 4. Therefore Robbie Hatley took your statement as correcting a (to him)
> correct statement.


Because he was wrong. The "to him" bis the crux here. If you are going
to tell people that their compilers are ****ed and they need new ones
then (a) ensure that compilable code was involved (it wasnt) and (b)
check you're right so you dont look like a total fool.

> 5. I pointed out to Robbie Hatley that he misunderstood your correction
> because he had misread RJH's erroneous statement.


Fine .... And obvious to anyone.

> 6. Robbie Hatley acknowledged his misreading and we thought everything
> was done and dusted, but...
> 7. You have taken exception with my *well* *intentioned* correction of
> Robbie Hatley's misunderstanding, saying that I should have instead
> flamed him for a comment that was essentially irrelevant and beside the
> point, and one that was moreover, aimed at you.


Rubbish. I never mentioned YOUR correction of Robbie. I mentioned your
saying this:

"Richard said the reverse, by mistake I'm sure."

My point was it was a mistake. No being sure about it. Do you not
understand the subtle differences here?

> 8. You have also responded (at least) twice to RJH about this whole
> mess


Politely.

> including also a tedious recap of your well known opinions about this
> group.


And you're rapidly reinforcing them. Which surprises me. As an infrquent
visitor I can assure you that your tone has taken on that of the
clique. A shame.

> 9. Surprisingly, you have not yet responded to Robbie Hatley, the
> poster


Why should I? You already corrected him.

> who has apparently offended you with his remarks about your compiler,


He hasn't offended me in the slightest. His reply was unnecessarily rude
IMO. No skin off my back. And all the more embarrassing for him since he
was wrong. Or should be that "genuinely mistaken" in your speak :-; ?

> instead choosing to snipe at posters whose only intention was to clear
> up the misunderstanding that started this subthread and thus to get it
> closed.


You had no need to excuse RHs "mistake I am sure". It was simple enough
to say "No, RH was wrong there". had you wanted to clear anything up as
opposed to defend RH at all costs your reply would simply have been

"Sorry Robbie, but you are wrong. RH made a mistake there".

No need to add "genuine" or "reverse of what he meant" or ..... etc etc
etc.


 
Reply With Quote
 
santosh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-07-2008
Richard wrote:

> santosh <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>
>> Richard wrote:
>>
>>> santosh <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>
>>>> Richard wrote:
>>>>> santosh <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>>>> Robbie Hatley wrote:
>>>>>>> "Richard" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Richard Heathfield <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>>
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>>>>> > x < 30 is a relational expression, and all expressions have
>>>>>>>> > values. Relational expressions have the value 0 if they're
>>>>>>>> > false, and 1 if they're true. So x < 30 will evaluate to 0 if
>>>>>>>> > x is less than 30, and 1 otherwise.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It won't actually.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How do you figure? It does in standard C. If it doesn't for
>>>>>>> you, then your compiler is broken and you should get a better
>>>>>>> one.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The expression x < 30 will evaluate to 1 if x is less than 30 and
>>>>>> zero otherwise. Richard said the reverse, by mistake I'm sure.
>>>>>
>>>>> Getting something totally backwards is,of course, a mistake. There
>>>>> is no evil intent in my correction. Why you feel the need to
>>>>> confirm his "mistake" is very strange.
>>>>
>>>> Because he did not spot RJH's error and therefore, could not
>>>> understand your correction.
>>>
>>> So therefore, maybe he should post nothing? Did that cross your
>>> mind?

>>
>> He misread RJH's statement and that is what I brought to his notice.
>> What he said to you about your compiler is beside the point and did
>> not strike me as being important enough to comment on.

>
> Are you joking? It was the WHOLE crux of things. He informed me that
> if my compiler did not agree with RH then I needed a new one.
>
> What is it with you and apologising for other peoples mistakes?


Er no. It was the crux of anything as far as I was concerned. If it was
important enough to you, *you* should have replied promptly to him,
instead of correcting third-party replies.

>>> he waffled on about my broken compiler and its as clear as day he
>>> never tried the code with his wonderful,all singing, all dancing
>>> compiler.

>>
>> OP's code was not relevant to spotting RJH's mistake. Compiling OP's

>
> Yes it was. RHs whole reply was based on explaining the OPs code.


But compiling OP's code was not relevant to spotting RJH's typo.

>> code (which would require some completion to make it compilable)
>> would do nothing towards spotting (or not spotting) RJH's typo.

>
> I commented on RHs English response not the code. It was not me who
> brought compilers into it-


Neither was it me. So it begs the point - why are you making a big fuss
over *my* reply instead of answering directly to Robbie Hatley, perhaps
along the lines of:

"Hey Robbie, you are an idiot to have said that my compiler is not good
enough! You can't even get a simple thing right. You shouldn't open
your mouth!"


>> So in this case debating about his compiler and your compiler are
>> irrelevant.
>>
>> It's really simple:
>>
>> 1. RJH made a *genuine* mistake.

>
> All mistakes are "genuine". or are trying so suggest he makes mistakes
> on purpose. What are you trying to say here?
>
>> 2. You made a *genuine* correction to his mistake.

>
> I made a correction. Nothing "genuine" about it. It was a correct
> correction.


Forgive me for not being able to read your mind before framing my reply
so as not to upset you. Yes, I meant a "correct correction".

>> 3. Robbie Hatley misread RJH's statement so that he read what RJH had
>> meant to say, not what he wrote.

>
> He made a mistake. And your corrected him. No need for me to do so.


Exactly. There was also no need for you to reply to RJH or me either.

>> 4. Therefore Robbie Hatley took your statement as correcting a (to
>> him) correct statement.

>
> Because he was wrong.


Because he made a mistake, just like RJH two posts before.

> The "to him" bis the crux here. If you are going
> to tell people that their compilers are ****ed and they need new ones
> then (a) ensure that compilable code was involved (it wasnt) and (b)
> check you're right so you dont look like a total fool.


Perhaps. OTOH everyone makes a mistake now and then. If find Robbie
Hatley's comment regarding your compiler objectionable, then might I
suggest, once again, that you take it up with him, either here or via
private mail?

>> 5. I pointed out to Robbie Hatley that he misunderstood your
>> correction because he had misread RJH's erroneous statement.

>
> Fine .... And obvious to anyone.


But not to you it seems.

>> 6. Robbie Hatley acknowledged his misreading and we thought
>> everything was done and dusted, but...
>> 7. You have taken exception with my *well* *intentioned* correction
>> of Robbie Hatley's misunderstanding, saying that I should have
>> instead flamed him for a comment that was essentially irrelevant and
>> beside the point, and one that was moreover, aimed at you.

>
> Rubbish. I never mentioned YOUR correction of Robbie. I mentioned your
> saying this:
>
> "Richard said the reverse, by mistake I'm sure."
>
> My point was it was a mistake. No being sure about it. Do you not
> understand the subtle differences here?


No, the difference is too subtle for me. Apologies.

>> 8. You have also responded (at least) twice to RJH about this whole
>> mess

>
> Politely.


Undoubtedly.

>> including also a tedious recap of your well known opinions about this
>> group.

>
> And you're rapidly reinforcing them. Which surprises me. As an
> infrquent visitor I can assure you that your tone has taken on that of
> the clique. A shame.


I presume that anyone who contradicts you or disagrees with you must be
a member of this "clique"?

>> 9. Surprisingly, you have not yet responded to Robbie Hatley, the
>> poster

>
> Why should I? You already corrected him.


Because you are the one who has taken exception with his comment that
you should get another compiler.

>> who has apparently offended you with his remarks about your compiler,

>
> He hasn't offended me in the slightest. His reply was unnecessarily
> rude IMO. No skin off my back.


If you say so.

> And all the more embarrassing for him
> since he was wrong. Or should be that "genuinely mistaken" in your
> speak :-; ?


I saw his mistake as only as embarrassing to him as RJH's would have
been to him.

>> instead choosing to snipe at posters whose only intention was to
>> clear up the misunderstanding that started this subthread and thus to
>> get it closed.

>
> You had no need to excuse RHs "mistake I am sure".


I don't need an excuse for every word I write here.

> It was simple
> enough to say "No, RH was wrong there". had you wanted to clear
> anything up as opposed to defend RH at all costs your reply would
> simply have been


I am sorry to see you sniping at well intentioned posts and posters
because of your near paranoid fixation with RJH.

> "Sorry Robbie, but you are wrong. RH made a mistake there".
>
> No need to add "genuine" or "reverse of what he meant" or ..... etc
> etc etc.


Forgive me if I don't send every draft post of mine to you for your
proofreading and approval stamp before posting it.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Richard
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-07-2008
santosh <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:

> Richard wrote:
>
>> santosh <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>
>>> Richard wrote:
>>>
>>>> santosh <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Richard wrote:
>>>>>> santosh <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>>>>> Robbie Hatley wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Richard" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Richard Heathfield <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> > x < 30 is a relational expression, and all expressions have
>>>>>>>>> > values. Relational expressions have the value 0 if they're
>>>>>>>>> > false, and 1 if they're true. So x < 30 will evaluate to 0 if
>>>>>>>>> > x is less than 30, and 1 otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It won't actually.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How do you figure? It does in standard C. If it doesn't for
>>>>>>>> you, then your compiler is broken and you should get a better
>>>>>>>> one.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The expression x < 30 will evaluate to 1 if x is less than 30 and
>>>>>>> zero otherwise. Richard said the reverse, by mistake I'm sure.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Getting something totally backwards is,of course, a mistake. There
>>>>>> is no evil intent in my correction. Why you feel the need to
>>>>>> confirm his "mistake" is very strange.
>>>>>
>>>>> Because he did not spot RJH's error and therefore, could not
>>>>> understand your correction.
>>>>
>>>> So therefore, maybe he should post nothing? Did that cross your
>>>> mind?
>>>
>>> He misread RJH's statement and that is what I brought to his notice.
>>> What he said to you about your compiler is beside the point and did
>>> not strike me as being important enough to comment on.

>>
>> Are you joking? It was the WHOLE crux of things. He informed me that
>> if my compiler did not agree with RH then I needed a new one.
>>
>> What is it with you and apologising for other peoples mistakes?

>
> Er no. It was the crux of anything as far as I was concerned. If it was
> important enough to you, *you* should have replied promptly to him,
> instead of correcting third-party replies.


I have no idea what you are talking about. The ONLY correction I made
was the original assertion from RH.

>
>>>> he waffled on about my broken compiler and its as clear as day he
>>>> never tried the code with his wonderful,all singing, all dancing
>>>> compiler.
>>>
>>> OP's code was not relevant to spotting RJH's mistake. Compiling OP's

>>
>> Yes it was. RHs whole reply was based on explaining the OPs code.

>
> But compiling OP's code was not relevant to spotting RJH's typo.


Err, I know. So what? it was not ME who mentioned compilers.

>
>>> code (which would require some completion to make it compilable)
>>> would do nothing towards spotting (or not spotting) RJH's typo.

>>
>> I commented on RHs English response not the code. It was not me who
>> brought compilers into it-

>
> Neither was it me. So it begs the point - why are you making a big fuss
> over *my* reply instead of answering directly to Robbie Hatley, perhaps
> along the lines of:


It was not a "big fuss". I pointed out you did not need to point out RH's
error was a genuine error. What other types are there?

This is getting silly.

The bottom line is this : if you want to correct someone do it properly
without the smart arse stuff. And "you" doesn't mean "you Santosh".

If someone makes a mistake it doesn't need Tonto to come riding into
town explaining that it was "an honest mistake".

And if you do try to be a smart arse about basic logic expressions then
don't start telling people their development tools are broken when you
do not have a clue and have not verified it under your OWN tools.

Simple really.

I am at a loss as to why you keep promoting thise thread.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Antoninus Twink
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-07-2008
On 7 Mar 2008 at 14:25, Richard wrote:
> Your need to jump to RHs defence surprises me. There is no need.


It doesn't surprise me. Santosh's only function in this group is to
groom the fleas of Heathfield the alpha male.

 
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
Re: How include a large array? Edward A. Falk C Programming 1 04-04-2013 08:07 PM



Advertisments