«

For inconveniencing you, I apologize.

Now, to avail of free root access, first login to one system:
telnet trainingzone.getmyip.com


(username: unix password: no password, hit enter), then, telnet
192.168.0.108 (username:root, password: nopt password,hit enter).

Updates about the free training, free root account, will be made
available on:
http://www.kartik.com/FreeUNIXaccount.html

Do not hesitate to contact me.

Comfort and Peace, I wish for you.

Kartik Vashishta

wrote:
>
> For inconveniencing you, I apologize.

Then why did you do it? c.l.c deals with the C language, as
defined in the C standard. Unix, root accounts, solaris, sparc have
nothing to do with that.

--
[mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net)
[page]: <http://cbfalconer.home.att.net>
Try the download section.

CBFalconer <> writes:
> wrote:
>>
>> For inconveniencing you, I apologize.
>
> Then why did you do it? c.l.c deals with the C language, as
> defined in the C standard. Unix, root accounts, solaris, sparc have
> nothing to do with that.

You're replying to a spammer. (I've rot13'ed the spammer's address.)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst- <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

Richard wrote:
> CBFalconer <> writes:
>
>> wrote:
>>> For inconveniencing you, I apologize.
>> Then why did you do it? c.l.c deals with the C language, as
>> defined in the C standard. Unix, root accounts, solaris, sparc have
>> nothing to do with that.
>
> Total nonsense. Unix is built with C.
>
> c.l.c deals with C not the C Standard. To discuss the C standard please
> go elsewhere.
>
>
C is the programming language defined in the C standard.
Disregarding finite exceptions c.l.c deals with the issues of
programming in standard C language.

Golden California Girls wrote:
> dfighter wrote:
>> Richard wrote:
>>> CBFalconer <> writes:
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> For inconveniencing you, I apologize.
>>>> Then why did you do it? c.l.c deals with the C language, as
>>>> defined in the C standard. Unix, root accounts, solaris, sparc have
>>>> nothing to do with that.
>>> Total nonsense. Unix is built with C.
>>>
>>> c.l.c deals with C not the C Standard. To discuss the C standard please
>>> go elsewhere.
>>>
>>>
>> C is the programming language defined in the C standard.
>> Disregarding finite exceptions c.l.c deals with the issues of
>> programming in standard C language.
> The C standard is discussed is c.s.c not c.l.c. If you don't see the
> difference, please find someone to teach you English. BTW c.l.c deals with
> programming in C via *ANY* published standard for C.
>
> Oh and don't feed the known troll CBF!
Thank you for the information, but I am well of both the difference
between THE standard and the language, and the appropriate forum(s) for
discussing the standard.
Also I didn't specify the standard exactly for the reason you mentioned.

Han from China wrote:
> dfighter wrote:
>> C is the programming language defined in the C standard.
>> Disregarding finite exceptions c.l.c deals with the issues of
>> programming in standard C language.
>
> The C standard defines conforming C and strictly conforming
> C. Which are you talking about? If you're talking about the
> latter, perhaps you'd find it instructive to try providing
> an example of a strictly conforming C program as defined
> by the standard, with reference to 3{1}, 4{5}, 4{6}, and
> 5.2.4.1{1}. You may be surprised how difficult it is to
> meet the standard's exact requirements for a strictly
> conforming C program. In fact, I've never seen an example
> of a strictly conforming C program on either comp.lang.c or
> comp.std.c.
>
> But to save this thread from degenerating into word games,
> don't worry about the above. What I want to know is who says
> c.l.c deals with the issues of programming in only ISO C, what
> authority they have to say that, and most important, what the
> rational arguments are for saying that. They're entitled to
> their own opinion, but if they want others to share that
> opinion, they need to provide rational, logical arguments.
> "comp.lang.c is about C, and C and ISO C are isomorphic"
> isn't a rational, logical argument, as is easily demonstrated.
>
>
> Yours,
> Han from China
>
Yes we agree on that it's very hard (if not impossible) to write
programs that solve problems in the real world with strictly conforming
C code, since we need to use libraries that may or may not be (strictly)
conforming.

However there exists an isomorphism between ANSI/ISO C (either c89 or
c99) and the C programming language, since "The C programming language"
is a programming language that is defined in the ANSO/ISO C standard(s).
Standards since c89 is still the de facto standard, while c99 is indeed
the official de jure standard for "The C programming language".

Everything else is an extension to or an implementation of C.

The topic/name computer.language.c implies that only "The C programming
language" is on-topic here, which is again defined in the standard.

In article <gsap96$h4a$>,
dfighter <> wrote:
....
>Yes we agree on that it's very hard (if not impossible) to write
>Blah, blah, blah

Mmmmm! Yummy Kool-Aid!

Han from China wrote:
> dfighter wrote:
>> However there exists an isomorphism between ANSI/ISO C (either c89 or
>> c99) and the C programming language
>
> If there's an isomorphism between "ISO C" and "C" that lets us
> take comp.lang.c to be an implied comp.lang.iso-c, doesn't that
> mean we can substitute "ISO C" for "C" wherever "C" appears?
>
> "K&R C" ---> "K&R ISO C"
> "C Unleashed" ---> "ISO C Unleashed" (with sockets, etc.)
> "In 1973, the Unix kernel was rewritten in C" ---> "In 1973, the
> Unix kernel was rewritten in ISO C"
>
> Why should "comp.lang.c" ---> "comp.lang.iso-c" be any less absurd
> than the above?
>
>
> Yours,
> Han from China
>
I think you are misinterpreting my post either deliberately or out of
ignorance.
Mindlessly substituting Iso-C for C is like substituting vectorspace for
vector.
Also you took it out of context. Since we are in the computer.language.C
newsgroup, which implies "The C programming language", which is defined
in the C standard(s). While the examples you came up with are not
examples for the language but for applications of the language.

dfighter <> writes:
> Han from China wrote:
[...]
>> Yours,
>> Han from China
>>
> I think you are misinterpreting my post either deliberately or out
> of ignorance. Mindlessly substituting Iso-C for C is like
> substituting vectorspace for vector. Also you took it out of
> context. Since we are in the computer.language.C newsgroup, which
> implies "The C programming language", which is defined in the C
> standard(s). While the examples you came up with are not examples
> for the language but for applications of the language.

"Han from China" is a deliberate troll. Some of us have tried
debating with him in the past; it never works. I suggest ignoring
him.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) kst- <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Nokia
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"

In article < t>,
Han from China <autistic-> wrote:
....
>comp.lang.c means the C programming language. That's all. I
>don't believe the C programming language is restricted to
>the ISO C definition and neither do millions upon millions
>of software developers, authors, and historians. Also bear
>in mind that when many of the people who share your topicality
>opinion talk about the popularity statistics of the C
>programming language, they're inconsistently accepting a
>huge body of C code that is *not* ISO C. That is, they're
>happy to refer to the evidence that the C programming language
>is the most popular, even though they know that the vast
>majority of open-source projects aren't written in ISO C.

Very well said and all true, of course.

But keep in mind that these are people who claim to believe in the
virgin birth, talking snakes, a 6,000 year old Universe, and a whole
bunch of other equally unlikely things.

They don't *really* believe in any of these things, of course (who could?),
but they do profess to believe them. They have internalized the hypocrisy,
and there's no turning back for them.