subroutine stack and C machine model

In article <hcq2do$309v$>,
Richard Tobin <> wrote:
>In article <quZHm.1367$>,
>bartc <> wrote:
>
>>> Of course, some languages have it even worse. I remember seeing a
>>> Basic program with deliberate obfuscation like
>>>
>>> 30 LET A$ = LEFT$(A$, 10)
>>> 40 REMOVE "XYZ" FROM A$
>
>>What is the obfuscation?
>
>See! It works!
>
>The second line is a comment, as is any line beginning "REM", because
>of Basic's keyword parsing.

Hah! Yes, I should have spotted that.
We used to do things like that all the time, back in the day.

Also, I certainly don't remember any keyword (functionality) of "remove"
in BASIC, but I assumed that it must have been present in the flavor you
were using. I don't think BASIC was ever standardized...

Kenny McCormack

In article <hcq4m4$c6a$>,
Kenny McCormack <> wrote:
>Also, I certainly don't remember any keyword (functionality) of "remove"
>in BASIC

You're right, there wasn't any. The program I'm remembering had
several other fake keywords, such as REMEMBER and REMERGE.

-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

Richard Tobin

In article <hcqc85$1ph$>,
Richard Tobin <> wrote:
>In article <hcq4m4$c6a$>,
>Kenny McCormack <> wrote:
>>Also, I certainly don't remember any keyword (functionality) of "remove"
>>in BASIC
>
>You're right, there wasn't any. The program I'm remembering had
>several other fake keywords, such as REMEMBER and REMERGE.

Yeah, that's what we used to do. Write things like:

REMEMBER to do this...

I also have a vague memory of it working like that in DOS batch,
but current testing reveals that it doesn't do it in either Windows
CMD.EXE or in DOSBox. I don't have quick access at the moment to a real
DOS machine to test it...

Kenny McCormack

On Nov 3, 8:01*pm, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On 1 Nov, 03:25,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 1, 4:28*am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
> > > On 31 Oct, 12:51,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > all of
> > > > you creeps praise [Schildt} for his clarity, which shows you don't know the
> > > > meaning of that word, for it means "conducive to understanding and
> > > > acquiring JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF".
>
> > > * * 1. Free from opaqueness; transparent; bright; light;
> > > * * * * luminous; unclouded.
> > > * * * * [Webster]
>
> > You've deliberately chosen the wrong definition:
>
> I did not. There were many definitions listed and I just quoted the
> first. They all read pretty similarly to me. And none of them
> mentioned Justified True Belief.

The Oxford English Dictionary does, in its definition of knowledge.
And, it defines "understanding" as "having knowledge", and "clarity"
as "leading to understanding". You've deliberately chosen the wrong
definition.

>
> clarity: clearness [Chambers]
> clearness: in a clear manner: distinctly [Chambers]
>
> Just because you humpty-dumpty the english langauge doesn't me we have
> to go along with it.

No, I used the OED.
>
> > the visual
> > definition. Furthermore, you've selected an inferior dictionary.
>
> riight. I assumed you'd just rant that dictionaries were a plot by neo-
> facist capitalist fast cats to supress the worker and and the
> struggling artist. A simple expression of marxist dialetic and
> envisioning the class struggle in a post inductrial age. When I taught
> nash how to win the Nobel prize we didn't use a faggot dictionary as
> neither of us was autistic.

No, your use of dictionaries is in error. And if you can't spell
"dialectic" don't satirize Marxist writings. You look like a fool.
>
> > The
> > OED has two definitions, one relating to visual clarity and the other
> > linking "clarity" to understanding.
>
> I've only got an S-OED but I'll check that. (Can't do so immediately)
>
> > Its definition of "understanding"
>
> not its definition of "clarity" then?
>
>
>
> > is the link to knowledge, and its definition of "knowledge" defines it
> > as "justified true belief".- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

spinoza1111

On Nov 3, 6:31*pm, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On 2 Nov, 19:19, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
>
> > On 2009-11-02,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 2, 2:34*am, Seebs <usenet-nos...@seebs.net> wrote:
> > Seriously, you're claiming "most C programmers" are confused by this, but
> > you've yet to demonstrate that even ONE programmer has been confused by
> > this. *Every book I'm aware of states it explicitly, and I have never in
> > all my years of programming and reading C code seen a single person make
> > a mistake with this.
>
> I think there may a bit of "luck" involved here. I suspect a sample of
> C programmers if asked, which order f and g were called in in f() + g
> () most would answer "f". *The reason they hardly get bitten by this
> is a natural shyness of obscure code. And exploiting multiple

It's obscure not because it's obscure in any common sense or
mathematical way, but because of the limitations of C. C failed to
support common sense, and this is a fault of C.

> functions for their value and their side effects might be regarded as
> obscure (even if they didn't quite phrase it that way). The best one I
> can think of is some sort of stream reader but then you'd have to be
> unlucky enough to do arithmatic on the values.
>
> * */* calculate number of entries from start and end */
> * *num_vals = -(read_val() - read_val());
>
> which would probably cause most people to blink.
>
> * */* calculate velocity from distance and time */
> * *velocity = read_val() / read_val();
>
> * */* read word */
> * *word = read_val() << 8 | read_val();
>
> the last one is plausible
>
> <snip>
>
> > >> Could you give us a single concrete example of a language you believe has
> > >> done a "halfway decent job of language design"? *Hint: *If it has any
> > >> of the traits you bitch about in C, I won't believe you.
>
> "ALGOL 60 was a language so far ahead of its time that it
> was not only an improvement on its predecessors but also
> on nearly all its successors".
> * * * * * * * * --C.A.R. Hoare
>
> > > C Sharp & Java. Both of these reject reordering of a()+b() and after
> > > precedence, evaluate left to right.
>
> > Can't speak to C Sharp much. *(Obviously, "portability" is a moot point
> > there.) *But let's keep Java in mind, then.
>
> I've heard it said that both Java and C Hash are both equally
> unportable as both both only run on a single platform (their VM)
>
>
> <snip>
>
> > > Nobody's capable of thinking themselves at all "intelligent" unless
> > > constantly and addictively reassured by meaningless victories over
> > > code that was in most cases poorly designed in a hack o rama, like
> > > rats pressing a lever.
>
> speak for yourself
>
I'm not speaking for myself, since I escaped the rat o rama five years
ago.
> <snip>

spinoza1111

On Nov 3, 8:46*am, Moi <r...@invalid.address.org> wrote:
> On Mon, 02 Nov 2009 19:19:55 +0000, Seebs wrote:
> > On 2009-11-02,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> And you apparently don't even
> >> understand my contention: that the "indeterminacy" is not a positive
> >> and observable thing, because most C programmers stay with one compiler
> >> or a narrow range, and they see determinacy...yet are blamed for your
> >> screwup because they haven't read the standard!
>
> > Name one.
>
> > Seriously, you're claiming "most C programmers" are confused by this,
> > but you've yet to demonstrate that even ONE programmer has been confused
> > by this. *Every book I'm aware of states it explicitly, and I have never
> > in all my years of programming and reading C code seen a single person
> > make a mistake with this.
>
> You probably have forgotton about Herb Schildt. Herb was the kind of
> red blooded American guy who only needed to bought a Borland compiler
> , got himself a copy of the C standard, to write a book about the
> infamous C programming language standard, that almost won the him
> the Pullitzer price, and he was nominated for the Nobel prize
> for economics, too!
>
> >>> You've admitted that you don't know much about C. *You've proven that
>
> But he taught it at Princeton, you fool!
>
> >> No, I have said that while I was asked Princeton to teach C, and assist
>
> OMG
>
> AvK- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yeah, I taught it at Princeton, you fool. I didn't get my dick caught
in the wringer coding for some reinsurance firm and I don't post from
East Jesus. I also read more than you in all fields, and I'm better
looking as well.

spinoza1111

On 2009-11-04, spinoza1111 <> wrote:
> The Oxford English Dictionary does, in its definition of knowledge.

Its definition, singular? Or does it have multiple ones?

> And, it defines "understanding" as "having knowledge", and "clarity"
> as "leading to understanding". You've deliberately chosen the wrong
> definition.

There are multiple definitions. You don't get to assert that a specific
one is the only possible one.

Anyway, this was already resolved: When text is clear, you develop accurate
knowledge of the *meaning of the text* -- not necessarily of the world.

The statement "elephants are always green" is quite clear, and it does lead
to justified true belief -- the justified true belief that the meaning of
the statement is that, for all e such that e is an elephant, e has the
attribute of being green. It does not, as it happens, describe the world
correctly, but that doesn't preclude the development of justified true belief
about the *statement*.

-s
--
Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

Seebs

On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:20:54 -0800 (PST), spinoza1111
<> wrote:

>On Nov 3, 8:01*pm, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>> On 1 Nov, 03:25,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Nov 1, 4:28*am, Nick Keighley <nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com>
>> > > On 31 Oct, 12:51,spinoza1111<spinoza1...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > > all of
>> > > > you creeps praise [Schildt} for his clarity, which shows you don't know the
>> > > > meaning of that word, for it means "conducive to understanding and
>> > > > acquiring JUSTIFIED TRUE BELIEF".
>>
>> > > * * 1. Free from opaqueness; transparent; bright; light;
>> > > * * * * luminous; unclouded.
>> > > * * * * [Webster]
>>
>> > You've deliberately chosen the wrong definition:
>>
>> I did not. There were many definitions listed and I just quoted the
>> first. They all read pretty similarly to me. And none of them
>> mentioned Justified True Belief.
>
>The Oxford English Dictionary does, in its definition of knowledge.
>And, it defines "understanding" as "having knowledge", and "clarity"
>as "leading to understanding". You've deliberately chosen the wrong
>definition.
>
>>
>> clarity: clearness [Chambers]
>> clearness: in a clear manner: distinctly [Chambers]
>>
>> Just because you humpty-dumpty the english langauge doesn't me we have
>> to go along with it.
>
>No, I used the OED.

No, you made it up.


These are ALL the definitions of "clarity" in the OED:
(http://dictionary.oed.com)
CLARITY
1. Brightness, lustre, brilliancy, splendour. Obs. (An exceedingly
common sense in 17th c.)
b. with pl. Obs.
c. fig. ‘Light’. Obs.
2. Glory, divine lustre. Obs.
3. Illustrious quality; lustre of renown. Obs.
4. Clearness: in various current uses; e.g. of colour, sky,
atmosphere, sight, intellect, judgement, conscience, style.


And these are all the definitions of
CLEARNESS
The quality of being clear; in various senses of the adj.
1. Brightness, luminousness; splendour, brilliancy; fairness, beauty;
fineness of weather. Obs.
2. Freedom from opacity, obscurity, or discolourment; distinctness or
purity of light or colour; transparency, pellucidness.
3. Distinctness of vision, sound, expression, comprehension, etc.
4. Purity; innocence; openness. Obs.
5. Freedom from anything obstructive.

And fnially, of "clear", which had many senses. But no mention of your
"definition":
CLEAR:
A. adj. I. Of light, colour, things illuminated.
1. a. orig. Expressing the vividness or intensity of light: Brightly
shining, bright, brilliant.
b. Now expressing the purity or uncloudedness of light; clear fire, a
fire in full combustion without flame or smoke. Also used with adjs.,
as clear white, brown, etc.
2. a. Of the day, daylight, etc.: Fully light, bright; opposed to dusk
or twilight. arch.
b. Of the weather: orig. Full of sunshine, bright, ‘fine’; serene,
‘fair’. Obs. (Cf. to clear up.)
c. Now: Free from cloud, mists, and haze; a ‘clear day’, ‘clear
weather’ is that in which the air is transparent so that distant
objects are distinctly seen; a ‘clear sky’, a sky void of cloud.
d. fig. Serene, cheerful; of unclouded countenance or spirit. Obs. or
arch.
3. a. Allowing light to pass through, transparent.
b. Of coloured liquids, etc.; Translucent, pellucid, free from
sediment, not turbid or opaque.
4. a. Bright or shining, as polished illuminated surfaces; lustrous.
(Now expressing esp. purity and evenness of lustre.)
b. gen. Bright, splendid, brilliant. Obs.
c. A common epithet of women: Beautiful, beauteous, fair. Obs.
d. Of the complexion, skin, etc.: Bright, fresh, and of pure colour;
blooming; in modern use, esp. implying purity or transparency of the
surface skin, and absence of freckles, discolouring spots, or
‘muddiness’ of complexion.
5. fig. Illustrious. [So L. clrus.] Obs.
II. Of vision, perception, discernment.
6. Of lines, marks, divisions: Clearly seen, distinct, well-marked,
sharp.
7. a. Of words, statements, explanations, meaning: Easy to understand,
fully intelligible, free from obscurity of sense, perspicuous.
b. Also transferred to the speaker or writer.
c. Not in cipher or code. Often absol., in clear.
8. Of a vision, conception, notion, view, memory, etc.: Distinct,
unclouded, free from confusion.
9. a. Manifest to the mind or judgement, evident, plain.
b. Of a case at law: Of which the solution is evident.
10. Of the eyes, and faculty of sight: Seeing distinctly, having keen
perception.
11. Of the faculty of discernment: That sees, discerns, or judges
without confusion of ideas.
12. Of persons: Having a vivid or distinct impression or opinion;
subjectively free from doubt; certain, convinced, confident, positive,
determined. Const. in (an opinion, belief), of (a fact), as to, on,
about (a fact, course of action), for (a course of action); that. I am
clear that = it is clear to me that. [So in 12th c. Fr.]
III. Of sound.
13. a. Of sounds, voice: Ringing, pure and well-defined, unmixed with
dulling or interfering noises; distinctly audible.
b. Phonetics. Designating one of two varieties of lateral consonants
(the other being called ‘dark’) (see quots.).
IV. Of moral purity, innocence.
14. fig. from 3: Pure, guileless, unsophisticated.
15. a. Unspotted, unsullied; free from fault, offence, or guilt;
innocent. Cf. CLEAN a.
b. Const. of, from.
V. Of free, unencumbered condition.
16. a. Of income, gain, etc.: Free from any encumbrance, liability,
deduction, or abatement; unencumbered; net.
b. Sheer, mere, bare, unaided. Obs.
17. Free from all limitation, qualification, question, or shortcoming;
absolute, complete; entire, pure, sheer. Cf. CLEAN a.
18. Free from encumbering contact; disengaged, unentangled, out of
reach, quite free; quit, rid.
a. with from.
b. with of. Quit, rid, free.
c. In such phrases as to get or keep (oneself) clear, to steer clear,
go clear, stand clear, the adjective passes at length into an adverb.
d. With n. of action.
19. Of measurement of space or time: combining the notions of senses
17, 18. a. Of distance. Cf. C. 5.
b. clear side (of a ship): see quot.
c. clear day or days: a day or days, with no part occupied or
deducted.
20. a. Free from obstructions or obstacles; unoccupied by buildings,
trees, furniture, etc.; open.
b. Free from roughnesses, protuberances, knots, branches; = CLEAN a.
12.
c. clear ship: a ship whose deck is cleared for action.
21. Free or emptied of contents, load, or cargo; empty; esp. of a
ship, when discharged.
22. Free from any encumbrance or trouble; out of debt; out of the hold
of the law.
23. Free from pecuniary complications.
24. slang. Very drunk. Obs.
25. a. U.S. slang. Free from admixture, unadulterated, pure, ‘real.’
clear grit: ‘real stuff’: see quots.
b. In technical or trade use.
B. adv. [Clear is not originally an adverb, and its adverbial use
arose partly out of the predicative use of the adjective, as in ‘the
sun shines clear’; partly out of the analogy of native English adverbs
which by loss of final -e had become formally identical with their
adjectives, esp. of CLEAN adv., which it has largely supplanted.]
1. Brightly, with effulgence; with undimmed or unclouded lustre. [Cf.
bright similarly used.]
2. In a clear or perspicuous manner; distinctly. Obs. (now CLEARLY.)
3. Manifestly, evidently. Obs. (now CLEARLY.)
4. a. With clear voice; distinctly; CLEARLY.
b. clear-away: entirely, completely.
5. a. Completely, quite, entirely, thoroughly; = CLEAN adv. 5. Obs.
exc. dial. and U.S.
b. With away, off, out, through, over, and the like; esp. where there
is some notion of getting clear of obstructions, or of escaping; =
CLEAN.
6. See other quasi-adverbial uses in A. 18c.
C. n. I. Elliptical uses of the adjective.
1. A fair lady, a ‘fair’. Obs.
2. Brightness, clearness. Obs.
3. The clear part of a mirror. Obs.
4. Painting. (pl.) Lights as opposed to shades.
5. a. Clear space, part of anything clear of the frame or setting;
phr. in the clear, in interior measurement. See A. 19.
b. Colloq. phr. in the clear: (a) out of reach; (b) unencumbered; free
from trouble, danger, suspicion, etc.; (c) having a clear profit.
orig. U.S.
II. Verbal n. from CLEAR v.
6. a. A clearing of the atmosphere, sky, or weather.
b. With adverbs: clear-out, an act of clearing out (see CLEAR v. 26);
clear-up, an act of clearing up, spec. the settlement of accounts (see
CLEAR v. 27g); also attrib.
D. Combinations.
1. With the adj.: chiefly parasynthetic; as clear-aired (having clear
air), clear-crested, -faced, -featured, -hearted, -limbed, -minded,
-pointed, -spirited, -stemmed, -throated, -toned, -voiced, -walled,
-witted, etc.
2. With the adv., as clear-dangling, -drawn, -judging, -seeing,
-shining, -smiling, -spoken, -standing, -swayed, -writ, etc. (See also
A. 1b.)
3. Special comb.: clear-air gust or turbulence, disturbance of the
atmosphere at high altitudes; clear-cake, a kind of confection, partly
transparent; clear-cut a., sharply-chiselled, sharply defined;
clear-cutness, the quality of being clear-cut; clear-cutting,
-felling, the cutting down and removal of every tree in a given area;
hence clear-fell, clear-felled adjs.; clear-light v., to illumine
clearly; clear-matin, some kind of bread; clear-skin Austral., an
unbranded beast (cf. clean-skin); also attrib.; clear-walk (see
quot.); clear-way, clearway, (a) (see quot. a 1884); (b) a path or
passage-way; (c) a road on which vehicles are not allowed to park or
wait; clear-wing, attrib., popular name of the Hawk-moths with
transparent wings (Ægeridæ); so clear-winged. Also CLEAR-EYED,
CLEAR-HEADED, CLEAR-STARCH, etc.
ADDITIONS SERIES 1993
clear, a., adv., and n.
Add: [C.] [I.] Sense 6 in Dict. becomes 7.
6. In Scientology, a person who has completed a course of dianetic
therapy and is considered free of neuroses and other physical or
mental ills. Cf. *PRECLEAR n.

================
Conclusion: either you're lying, or delusional.
In neither case will you admit your error, of course.

Colonel Harlan Sanders

On 2009-11-04, Colonel Harlan Sanders <> wrote:
> No, you made it up.

No, he just cherry-picked.

> And fnially, of "clear", which had many senses. But no mention of your
> "definition":

Sort of.

> CLEAR:
> 7. a. Of words, statements, explanations, meaning: Easy to understand,
> fully intelligible, free from obscurity of sense, perspicuous.
> b. Also transferred to the speaker or writer.

"Easy to understand".

Since he then cherry-picks from "understanding" to get to the sense of
leading to knowledge, and then cherry-picks the definition of knowledge,
and then commits a category error to jump from knowledge of the statement's
meaning to knowledge of the world, he's not technically lying or delusional,
just completely wrong[*].

-s[*] Actually, I can't prove that he's not lying, or that he's not
delusional, I merely observe that his statements are consistent with a
merely disingenuous or incompetent observer.
--
Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

Seebs

On 2009-11-04, Richard Heathfield <> wrote:
> In <slrnhf3iss.kks.usenet->, Seebs wrote:
>>[*] Actually, I can't prove that he's not lying, or that he's not
>> delusional, I merely observe that his statements are consistent with
>> a merely disingenuous or incompetent observer.

> Hanlon's Razor applies.

I think the Verisign Corollary[*] actually comes into play:

Sometimes, something can only be adequately explained by malice *and*
stupidity.
[*] Named after thing where they set the root servers to yield fraudulent
responses for nonexistent domains.

-s
--
Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / usenet-
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!

Seebs