Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > C Programming > Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C

Reply
Thread Tools

Wrapping existing UNIX commands in C

 
 
Keith Thompson
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2012
"BartC" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> "gwowen" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> On Aug 5, 11:27 am, Nick Keighley <(E-Mail Removed)>
>> wrote:
>>> On Aug 4, 11:34 am, "Heinrich Wolf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>> > I do not mind your question. And I do not restrict a C forum to only
>>> > Windows
>>> > OS.
>>>
>>> nor does anyone else. The point is *both* Unix and Windows specific
>>> questions are off-topic.

>>
>> So it is repeatedly claimed. Such repitition aside, I don't see any
>> evidence that that is actually the case.

>
> C is a funny language in that it pervades everywhere and people having
> issues with it may not be aware of the strict partitioning into standard
> language / extensions / compilers / implementations / platform / libraries /
> applications / hardware / etc that some try to enforce here. As far as the
> latter are concerned, only the standard language is on-topic (plus anything
> to do with topicality!)
>
> But the standard language would be quite a narrow topic, unless you are
> interested in C Standard minutiae, while most questions seem to be covered
> by the FAQ. Since traffic on the group is quite low, and many of the more
> relevant groups are pretty much dead, I can't see the problems. Just put
> "OT" in front of the subject to stop anyone complaining.


The standard C language is not a narrow topic. This newsgroup still has
a decent level of traffic, even if you consider only the articles that
you and I would both agree are topical. And comp.unix.programmer is
also still active. I think some relevant Windows groups are as well;
comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32 is the one I tend to refer people
to.

And the fact remains that if you have a question about some
POSIX-specific C function, comp.unix.programmer has a higher density
than comp.lang.c of people who can answer and discuss it intelligently.
(Some of them happen to be the same people).

Standard C happens to be an interest of mine. I *like* having a forum
to discuss it in.

As for putting "OT" in the subject, how about

Subject: OT: How do I repair my bicycle chain?

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"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
 
      08-06-2012
Keith Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> gwowen <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>> On Aug 6, 12:15*pm, James Kuyper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> There's a key word missing from that last sentence. We believe that such
>>> questions should not be asked HERE.

>>
>> I don't believe that.

>
> Why not?
>
> When I mention that a question would be better asked elsewhere, I almost
> always suggest one or more newsgroups that would be a better fit. Have
> you not noticed that?
>
> [...]


I probably misunderstood you. I thought you meant you didn't
believe James's statement that "We believe that such questions
should not be asked HERE", i.e., that you were expressing doubt
about what we believe. On further consideration, I think you meant
that you don't believe that such questions should not be asked here.
Assuming that's the case, please ignore my previous response. (I
still disagee with you.)

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) (E-Mail Removed) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"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
 
      08-06-2012
James Kuyper <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
[...]
> The closest you could get would be lcc-win32, which for some reason is
> discussed here fairly frequently, rather than on comp.lang.lcc.

[...]

You mean comp.compilers.lcc, which discusses both lcc-win32 and the
lcc compiler on which it was based.

--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) (E-Mail Removed) <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
Will write code for food.
"We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this."
-- Antony Jay and Jonathan Lynn, "Yes Minister"
 
Reply With Quote
 
BartC
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2012
"Keith Thompson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> "BartC" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:


>> by the FAQ. Since traffic on the group is quite low, and many of the more
>> relevant groups are pretty much dead, I can't see the problems.


> And comp.unix.programmer is
> also still active. I think some relevant Windows groups are as well;
> comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32 is the one I tend to refer people
> to.


That one is not so bad. But microsoft.public.win32.programmer.gdi for
example, last had a question posted 8 months ago (and hasn't had any
replies). And someone who thinks gnu.gcc might help with their gcc-specific
C problems, will see it apparently hasn't had any posts - ever!

> As for putting "OT" in the subject, how about
>
> Subject: OT: How do I repair my bicycle chain?


(Actually they could well have a better chance of getting help here, than
somewhere like uk.rec.cycling, which is very active, but highly political.)

The OT prefix ought to be used sensibly, not used an excuse to discuss
anything under the sun.

--
Bartc

 
Reply With Quote
 
James Kuyper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2012
On 08/06/2012 03:28 PM, BartC wrote:
....
> The OT prefix ought to be used sensibly, not used an excuse to discuss
> anything under the sun.


That begs the question - IMO it is almost never "sensible" to post the
first message of a thread using "OT" - if you need "OT", you've chosen
the wrong forum for your message. Thread drift often makes it
appropriate to add it to an existing thread's subject line, but that's a
different issue.

 
Reply With Quote
 
James Kuyper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-06-2012
On 08/06/2012 02:55 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
> James Kuyper <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> [...]
>> The closest you could get would be lcc-win32, which for some reason is
>> discussed here fairly frequently, rather than on comp.lang.lcc.

> [...]
>
> You mean comp.compilers.lcc, which discusses both lcc-win32 and the
> lcc compiler on which it was based.


I should have checked, rather than relying upon my memory. Sorry!
--
James Kuyper
 
Reply With Quote
 
Nick Keighley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-07-2012
On Aug 6, 9:50*am, gwowen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 11:27*am, Nick Keighley <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
> > On Aug 4, 11:34*am, "Heinrich Wolf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> > > I do not mind your question. And I do not restrict a C forum to only Windows
> > > OS.

>
> > nor does anyone else. The point is *both* Unix and Windows specific
> > questions are off-topic.

>
> So it is repeatedly claimed. *Such repitition aside, I don't see any
> evidence that that is actually the case.


I was correcting the impression he'd formed that people thought this
was
a Windows only ng.

I see little point in reiterating previously iterated positions

> All that is clear (to me, at least) is that a significant minority of
> regular posters are happy to answer such questions, while a separate
> minority are vociferous that they not even be asked.


 
Reply With Quote
 
gwowen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-07-2012
On Aug 6, 7:34*pm, Keith Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> gwowen <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> > On Aug 6, 12:15*pm, James Kuyper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> There's a key word missing from that last sentence. We believe that such
> >> questions should not be asked HERE.

>
> > I don't believe that.

>
> Why not?


Sorry, vague answer. I meant "I do not believe that such questions
should be asked here." Not "I do not believe that you believe that
such questions should be asked here".
 
Reply With Quote
 
James Kuyper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-07-2012
On 08/07/2012 03:33 AM, gwowen wrote:
> On Aug 6, 7:34�pm, Keith Thompson <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> gwowen <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
>>> On Aug 6, 12:15�pm, James Kuyper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> There's a key word missing from that last sentence. We believe that such
>>>> questions should not be asked HERE.

>>
>>> I don't believe that.

>>
>> Why not?

>
> Sorry, vague answer. I meant "I do not believe that such questions
> should be asked here." Not "I do not believe that you believe that
> such questions should be asked here".


"Vague" doesn't quite cover it. To me, you seemed to be saying 'I don't
believe "that such questions should not be asked here".', which is
almost, but not quite, exactly the opposite of what you meant.
--
James Kuyper
 
Reply With Quote
 
gwowen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-07-2012
On Aug 7, 11:44*am, James Kuyper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> "Vague" doesn't quite cover it. To me, you seemed to be saying 'I don't
> believe "that such questions should not be asked here".', which is
> almost, but not quite, exactly the opposite of what you meant.


No. That's exactly what I meant. I don't believe that such questions
should not be asked here.

I believe that any question relating to the C language, including
common extensions and C APIs like POSIX, pthreads, the Win32 C API,
Jacob's Container library, DOS TSR, Borland C should all be welcomed.

Some of those may get better answers elsewhere, and there's no problem
in pointing that out but if that's all you've got to say, you're
probably best off keeping quiet for a day or so, to see if someone who
knows more comes along.
 
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
enhancing/wrapping an existing instance of a duck Neville Dempsey Python 1 09-01-2008 06:27 PM
Adding a timeout to commands by wrapping + thread - suggestions? dduck Java 11 09-04-2007 12:34 PM
wrapping existing instance in new interface insyte@gmail.com Python 1 11-15-2006 11:25 PM
Need Help Differentiating Bad Commands From Incomplete Commands Tim Stanka Python 1 08-02-2004 02:08 AM
Re: man pages for C commands (GCC commands) Ben Pfaff C Programming 4 06-28-2003 06:21 PM



Advertisments