Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > New from the standards committee

Reply
Thread Tools

New from the standards committee

 
 
jacob navia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-04-2009
Mr Lawrence Jones wrote in a message in this group

<quote>
....the latest draft (N1401) now spells it out explicitly (and more
restrictively):

If any of the fields of the broken-down time contain values that
are outside their normal ranges, the behavior of the asctime
function is undefined. Likewise, if the calculated year exceeds
four digits or is less than the year 1000, the behavior is
undefined.

You'll be happy to know that the committee just voted (unanimously, as
it turns out) to remove gets() from the draft as well.
<end quote>

I think that the committee has done an excellent decision in both issues.

It could mean that buffer overflows and correct function specification are
going to have more weight in the decisions of the committee that they have
had till now.

It could mean also that all those discussions here and in comp.std.c were
NOT just wasted time, and that trying to reason with the committee members
is possible.

Mr Jones continued:

"So what are you going to complain about now?"

I have to concede that my two best battle horses have been killed...



I have still other complaints but it is clear that they do not have
the urgency of those two. Other complaints are much more a matter of
opinion.

I thank the committee members for their work.

Jacob
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
frank
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2009
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:15:11 +0100, jacob navia wrote:

> Mr Lawrence Jones wrote in a message in this group
>
> <quote>
> ...the latest draft (N1401) now spells it out explicitly (and more
> restrictively):
>
> If any of the fields of the broken-down time
> contain values that are outside their normal ranges,
> the behavior of the asctime function is undefined.
> Likewise, if the calculated year exceeds four digits or
> is less than the year 1000, the behavior is undefined.


That's worth quoting. I think that if you have a time-sensitive problem,
you have to find the syntax that fits. I wouldn't do carbon-dating in C
and hope that I had achieved something portable. For what I am studying
to do, a syntax that measures only in seconds and can last for a hundred
years is just fine.
--
frank

"Rape: is it too much to ask for corporations who bid on federal
contracts to refrain from?"
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
jacob navia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2009
frank a écrit :
> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:15:11 +0100, jacob navia wrote:
>
>> Mr Lawrence Jones wrote in a message in this group
>>
>> <quote>
>> ...the latest draft (N1401) now spells it out explicitly (and more
>> restrictively):
>>
>> If any of the fields of the broken-down time
>> contain values that are outside their normal ranges,
>> the behavior of the asctime function is undefined.
>> Likewise, if the calculated year exceeds four digits or
>> is less than the year 1000, the behavior is undefined.

>
> That's worth quoting. I think that if you have a time-sensitive problem,
> you have to find the syntax that fits. I wouldn't do carbon-dating in C
> and hope that I had achieved something portable. For what I am studying
> to do, a syntax that measures only in seconds and can last for a hundred
> years is just fine.


You can do carbon dating in C. The structure tm can be dimensioned as you
wish. We are speaking about asctime() here, that has a fixed size buffer.

Nothing would be wrong if you used strftime and a suitable dimensioned
struct tm.

 
Reply With Quote
 
jacob navia
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2009
It is interesting to note the silence of some people.

A resounding silence.



 
Reply With Quote
 
Tom St Denis
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2009
On Nov 5, 9:25*am, jacob navia <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> It is interesting to note the silence of some people.
>
> A resounding silence.


Didn't care before for the asctime bug in the C99 spec, don't care
now, won't care later.

How's that for silence?

Tom
 
Reply With Quote
 
Keith Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2009
jacob navia <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> It is interesting to note the silence of some people.
>
> A resounding silence.


I suspect I'm not the only person who has no idea what you're
referring to. Can you clarify?

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) <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"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Seebs
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2009
On 2009-11-05, Keith Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> jacob navia <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> It is interesting to note the silence of some people.
>>
>> A resounding silence.

>
> I suspect I'm not the only person who has no idea what you're
> referring to. Can you clarify?


I assume there must be at least one person who didn't care about this issue,
who has not reacted with horror or outrage to the committee fixing it, from
which doubtless some kind of inference could be drawn?

I didn't think this was a significant issue, and I still pretty much don't,
but I'm glad to see it fixed up. I might have been marginally happier with
a fix which involved requiring asctime not to be a festering sore on the
language's rear end, but I think that's probably not worth it -- I am pretty
sure everyone sane moved to strftime years ago.

-s
--
Copyright 2009, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / (E-Mail Removed)
http://www.seebs.net/log/ <-- lawsuits, religion, and funny pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Game_(Scientology) <-- get educated!
 
Reply With Quote
 
Keith Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-05-2009
Seebs <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> On 2009-11-05, Keith Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> jacob navia <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>> It is interesting to note the silence of some people.
>>>
>>> A resounding silence.

>>
>> I suspect I'm not the only person who has no idea what you're
>> referring to. Can you clarify?

>
> I assume there must be at least one person who didn't care about this issue,
> who has not reacted with horror or outrage to the committee fixing it, from
> which doubtless some kind of inference could be drawn?


"This issue" being asctime(), I suppose?

Yeah, that's probably what he meant, but I didn't want to assume it in
the absence of any clear statement.

[...]

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) (E-Mail Removed) <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"
 
Reply With Quote
 
Keith Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2009
Keith Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> jacob navia <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> It is interesting to note the silence of some people.
>>
>> A resounding silence.

>
> I suspect I'm not the only person who has no idea what you're
> referring to. Can you clarify?


Oh, I see. jacob changed the subject header from "New from the
standards committee" to "The sound of silence". Since I had already
read all the previous messages in the thread, my newsreader showed
me jacob's followup as if it were the first article in a new thread.
I could have discovered this if I had looked at the Reference header
or used my newsreader's command to go back to the parent article,
but I had no reason to think it was necessary.

So jacob was talking about the alleged lack of reaction to Lawrence
Jones's announcement regarding asctime. (In fact, there were
several comments. I won't speculate further.)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) (E-Mail Removed) <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"
 
Reply With Quote
 
frank
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-14-2009
On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 11:00:26 -0800, Keith Thompson wrote:

> Seebs <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> On 2009-11-05, Keith Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> jacob navia <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>>> It is interesting to note the silence of some people.
>>>>
>>>> A resounding silence.
>>>
>>> I suspect I'm not the only person who has no idea what you're
>>> referring to. Can you clarify?

>>
>> I assume there must be at least one person who didn't care about this
>> issue, who has not reacted with horror or outrage to the committee
>> fixing it, from which doubtless some kind of inference could be drawn?

>
> "This issue" being asctime(), I suppose?
>
> Yeah, that's probably what he meant, but I didn't want to assume it in
> the absence of any clear statement.
>
> [...]


I'm certain we're all grateful for jacob's attention to the committee.
If people like jacob didn't pay attention, there wouldn't be a committee.

Plauger says "call asctime if you want the English-language form
regardless of current locale." I would have to think that you wouldn't
need a lot of flexibility for this.

"The sound of silence" makes a great karaoke song for a guy and a gal. I
think I sang Art Garfunkel's part one octave lower. "The words of the
profits are written on the subway wall."
--
frank

"Guns: yes, they are harmful."
 
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: [SI] The Committee is dead, long live the Committee Robert Coe Digital Photography 0 11-14-2012 02:41 AM
Re: The Committee is dead, long live the Committee otter Digital Photography 0 11-14-2012 12:29 AM
Re: [SI] The Committee is dead, long live the Committee tony cooper Digital Photography 0 11-13-2012 10:19 PM
Re: [SI] The Committee is dead, long live the Committee PeterN Digital Photography 0 11-13-2012 09:59 PM
Re: Does anyone else wish the C++ standards committee would give usparity with other programming languages? Anonymous Infidel C++ 35 04-04-2009 05:57 PM



Advertisments