«

On 7/1/2010 11:13 PM, Uno wrote:
> Eric Sosman wrote:
>
>>> I'm looking for more of this source, but as a macro neophyte, I have no
>>> method for this.
>>
>> Do you have the book the source comes from? It's a good book
>> and does a good job of explaining why the source looks the way it
>> does, but it presupposes a certain proficiency in C. If you're
>> just looking at the source without the book's explanations (and
>> especially if you're the neophyte you say you are), I don't think
>> you're likely to gain much understanding. Get the book if you
>> don't already have it, and read it if you do.
>
> What I meant when I said that I was looking for more of this source, I
> was trying to find it on my own system, with which I have only 6 months
> experience. My search for stdio.h turned up 7 results, and I was sunk.

Do you understand that Plauger's code is *a* way of implementing the
Standard library, not *the* way? The library implementation(s) you
find on your system will certainly be different from Plauger's, in
detail and perhaps in overall structure.

> Plauger's book is fascinating, and he was nice enough to send me the
> source, so if I have trouble with any part of it, I can learn from my
> compiler. (or copy, paste, and post to usenet)

He sent you the code *and* permission to redistribute? I think
you should double-check before posting too freely. "Fair use" covers
a certain amount of copying (IANAL), but there's a limit.

> It will be the only book that comes with me to Lake Heron, NM now for 4
> days of camping at 7200 feet. I'll waive to you in your Arizona swelter.

Never been there; not likely to go. And it's "wave."

--
Eric Sosman
lid

Eric Sosman wrote:
> On 7/1/2010 11:13 PM, Uno wrote:
>> Eric Sosman wrote:
>>
>>>> I'm looking for more of this source, but as a macro neophyte, I have no
>>>> method for this.
>>>
>>> Do you have the book the source comes from? It's a good book
>>> and does a good job of explaining why the source looks the way it
>>> does, but it presupposes a certain proficiency in C. If you're
>>> just looking at the source without the book's explanations (and
>>> especially if you're the neophyte you say you are), I don't think
>>> you're likely to gain much understanding. Get the book if you
>>> don't already have it, and read it if you do.
>>
>> What I meant when I said that I was looking for more of this source, I
>> was trying to find it on my own system, with which I have only 6 months
>> experience. My search for stdio.h turned up 7 results, and I was sunk.
>
> Do you understand that Plauger's code is *a* way of implementing the
> Standard library, not *the* way? The library implementation(s) you
> find on your system will certainly be different from Plauger's, in
> detail and perhaps in overall structure.

That's one thing that Keith has taught me over the years, namely, that
trapseing through the headers on your own implementation might not be
the best way to do what you're trying to achieve.

[OT]
Is there a linux or gcc command that will tell me the inclusion tree for
stdio.h?
>
>> Plauger's book is fascinating, and he was nice enough to send me the
>> source, so if I have trouble with any part of it, I can learn from my
>> compiler. (or copy, paste, and post to usenet)
>
> He sent you the code *and* permission to redistribute? I think
> you should double-check before posting too freely. "Fair use" covers
> a certain amount of copying (IANAL), but there's a limit.

Yeah, and again he is really cool about it. You *can* use his stuff and
make money off it; you simply have to acknowledge.

My quoting a paragraph here or line there could never be stitched
together into a workproduct; you would need *all* of the source.

I will tell people how to write a very gracious man and replicate my
steps to getting the soft version of Plauger's library. I would
consider owning his book _The C Standard Library_ as a prereq. During
the formation of the C standard, he chaired the effort on the standard
library.

My particular interest is not that I want to write a standard library
myself, but I want to be able to use C to call whatever library I need.

I've come to learn that "library" can mean "any number you can calculate
with fortran."
>
>> It will be the only book that comes with me to Lake Heron, NM now for 4
>> days of camping at 7200 feet. I'll waive to you in your Arizona
>> swelter.
>
> Never been there; not likely to go. And it's "wave."

Your loss, it's beautiful. It was a little bit rugged up there, tho.
We camped in tents but could easily walk to a place where you have
electricity and could take a duke on a toilet with proper plumbing and
sanitation. (That's my dealbreaker for "roughing it.")

It has what every C programmer wants: no bugs.
--
Uno

Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Uno wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> That's one thing that Keith has taught me over the years,
>
> If you've been learning from Keith for years, how come you still don't
> know that getc and related functions return int, not char?

Because the difference doesn't amount to a hill of beans when I'm
looking for something more important.
>
> You would do well to spend less time delving into the deep stuff (for
> now), and a lot more time learning the basics. Once you have learned
> them, try not to forget them.
>

You would do well not to sound like seebs.
--
Uno

Uno ha scritto:

> You would do well not to sound like seebs.

Maybe you mistook thread for threat. uno.

"Speaking words of wisdom, write in C...".


--
Vincenzo Mercuri

"Uno" <> wrote in message
news:...

>>> It will be the only book that comes with me to Lake Heron, NM now for 4
>>> days of camping at 7200 feet. I'll waive to you in your Arizona
>>> swelter.

(The one time I camped in AZ, the overnight low was 22F (-5C).)

--
Bartc

Uno <> writes:
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> Uno wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> That's one thing that Keith has taught me over the years,
>>
>> If you've been learning from Keith for years, how come you still
>> don't know that getc and related functions return int, not char?
>
> Because the difference doesn't amount to a hill of beans when I'm
> looking for something more important.

You should rethink your idea of what's important. Hint: correctness
should be high on the list.

[...]

--
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"

Vincenzo Mercuri wrote:
> Uno ha scritto:
>
>> You would do well not to sound like seebs.
>
> Maybe you mistook thread for threat. uno.
>
> "Speaking words of wisdom, write in C...".
>
>

I understand peace.
--
Uno

Keith Thompson wrote:

> You should rethink your idea of what's important. Hint: correctness
> should be high on the list.

Sentences of the form:

inanimate object should

are philosophically unintelligible.

Objects lack agency and volition.

Hence,

correctness should

is ludicrous.

But the first one's better. An interpersonal should:

x ought y

Was falling into Hume's is-ought gap something you're proud of, when
this failed-distinction creates wars, environmental disasters, and
people without HBO?
--
Uno

Richard Heathfield wrote:
> Uno wrote:
>> Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> Uno wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> That's one thing that Keith has taught me over the years,
>>>
>>> If you've been learning from Keith for years, how come you still
>>> don't know that getc and related functions return int, not char?
>>
>> Because the difference doesn't amount to a hill of beans when I'm
>> looking for something more important.
>
> If there's anything more important than getting things right, I'd love
> to hear what it is.

Where to start. I'd like to get accurate numbers from British
Petroleum. I refuse to let Jim Demint stand between two governments in
his awesome, wretched Southern, filibustering Repugnance.

I remember you as one of the good guys while Blair was dismantling your
higher laws.

>
>>>
>>> You would do well to spend less time delving into the deep stuff (for
>>> now), and a lot more time learning the basics. Once you have learned
>>> them, try not to forget them.
>>>
>>
>> You would do well not to sound like seebs.
>
> Seebs will give you the same advice as me (in this regard) for the
> simple reason that it's good advice. So will Keith Thompson. So will
> anyone with a reasonable level of C knowledge. Why bother to ask C
> people C questions if you are not even remotely interested in learning
> the answers?
>

Dream of C, Richard:

http://i27.tinypic.com/13zzknp.jpg
http://i26.tinypic.com/2eplz47.jpg

Tja,
--
Uno

On 11 July, 09:45, Uno <merrilljen...@q.com> wrote:
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
> > Uno wrote:
> >> Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >>> Uno wrote:

> >>>> That's one thing that Keith has taught me over the years,
>
> >>> If you've been learning from Keith for years, how come you still
> >>> don't know that getc and related functions return int, not char?
>
> >> Because the difference doesn't amount to a hill of beans when I'm
> >> looking for something more important.
>
> > If there's anything more important than getting things right, I'd love
> > to hear what it is.

there are some subjects where being pedantically right is over kill.
You can be about right or good enough. Unfortunately computer
programming isn't one of those subjects. The computer does exactly
what you tell it. Absolute corretness is important.

> Where to start. *I'd like to get accurate numbers from British
> Petroleum.

and this has what to do with comp.lang.c?

>*I refuse to let Jim Demint stand between two governments in
> his awesome, wretched Southern, filibustering Repugnance.

I have no idea who Jim Demint (that's actually a name?) is. I suspect
many posters to clc don't either. Or care. I guess he is american
because you mentioned "filibuster" and "repugnance" (which, I
understand is a cool dood way to refer to the Republican party by
people who don't like them).

> I remember you as one of the good guys while Blair was dismantling your
> higher laws.

I'm from the UK and I didn't even know we *had* any higher laws. What
*is* a higher law?

<snip>