Recently there seems to be a lot of postings mostly about issues in
other languages (C++, Java, Python, or some others mentioned in passing)
but having little or nothing to do with C.
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 12:13:47 -0800, Tim Rentsch wrote:
Recently there seems to be a lot of postings mostly about issues in
other languages (C++, Java, Python, or some others mentioned in passing)
but having little or nothing to do with C.
From <https://clc-wiki.net/wiki/C_community:comp.lang.c:Introduction>:
1.4 What's not topical in comp.lang.c?
...
OS-specific questions, such as how to clear the screen, access
windowing or graphical interfaces, access the network, list
the files in a directory, or read "piped" output from a
subprocess. These questions should be directed to OS-specific
newsgroups, such as comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.misc,
comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32, comp.unix.programmer
(general Unix: processes, pipes, POSIX, curses, sockets),
comp.os.linux.development.apps, comp.os.msdos.programmer (DOS,
BIOS, memory models, interrupts, screen handling, hardware),
comp.os.os2.programmer.misc, comp.sys.mac.programmer.misc,
comp.unix.[vendor].
Compiler-specific questions, such as installation issues and
locations of header files. Ask about these in
compiler-specific newsgroups, such as gnu.gcc.help,
comp.os.msdos.djgpp (x86 version of the free gcc C compiler),
comp.compilers.lcc (the LCC family of C compilers including
LCC-Win32).
Writing a compiler. Ask about doing that in comp.compilers
(compiler construction and theory, moderated).
Processor-specific questions, such as questions about assembly
and machine code. x86 questions are appropriate in
comp.lang.asm.x86, embedded system processor questions may be
appropriate in comp.arch.embedded.
ABI-specific questions, such as how to interface assembly code
to C. These questions are both processor- and OS-specific and
should typically be asked in OS-specific newsgroups.
Algorithms, except questions about C implementations of
algorithms. "How do I implement algorithm X in C?" is not a
question about a C implementation of an algorithm, it is a
request for source code. Appropriate newsgroups may be:
comp.programming, comp.theory, comp.graphics.algorithms.
The C Standard, as opposed to standard C. Questions about the
C standard are best asked in comp.std.c.
C++. Please do not post or cross-post questions about C++ to
comp.lang.c. Ask C++ questions in C++ newsgroups, such as
comp.lang.c++, comp.lang.c++.moderated.
Making C interoperate with other languages. C has no
facilities for such interoperation. These questions should be
directed to system- or compiler-specific newsgroups. C++ has
features for interoperating with C, so for such questions
consider comp.lang.c++.
Feel free to go over all the recent postings in this group, and tell
me how many would be left if you strictly obeyed the above criteria.
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 12:13:47 -0800
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
[...]
Second item: I have the impression that in the last month or so
there have been a handful of postings from James Kuyper, in each
case intended as a direct response to a posting of mine, but not
threaded as a followup posting in the usual newsgroup way. Do
other people also see this? Or more directly, is there someone
who can offer an independent verification of such postings? If
it is happening, does anyone have an idea what might be causing
it?
James himself explains it in <uop3fd$1d8ao$1@dont-email.me>. And
it is an example of an incorrectly threaded message : his
quotations show that it is meant as a direct response to you but
the last item in References: is <uje6vv$gei$1@dont-email.me>
which is another post by James.
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 12:13:47 -0800, Tim Rentsch wrote:
Recently there seems to be a lot of postings mostly about issues in
other languages (C++, Java, Python, or some others mentioned in passing)
but having little or nothing to do with C.
From <https://clc-wiki.net/wiki/C_community:comp.lang.c:Introduction>:
[...]
Hear hear. Discussions about C++ in particular happen repeatedly ,
it's not just a recent occurrence.
I think it would make sense to expand the official scope of the
newsgroup to any topic related to C, even funky half-baked K&R-era implementations on long-dead architectures.
I don't see why a question on, e.g., x86-64 SIMD instructions
would need to be off-topic here if the OP is using a C compiler
with builtin functions for them.
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 12:13:47 -0800...
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
Second item: I have the impression that in the last month or so
there have been a handful of postings from James Kuyper, in each
case intended as a direct response to a posting of mine, but not
threaded as a followup posting in the usual newsgroup way. Do
other people also see this? Or more directly, is there someone
who can offer an independent verification of such postings? If
it is happening, does anyone have an idea what might be causing
it?
James himself explains it in <uop3fd$1d8ao$1@dont-email.me> .And it is
an example of an incorrectly threaded message : his quotations show that
it is meant as a direct response to you but the last item in
References: is <uje6vv$gei$1@dont-email.me> which is another post by James.
James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> writes:
On 1/28/24 16:17, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:[...]
James himself explains it in <uop3fd$1d8ao$1@dont-email.me> .And it is
an example of an incorrectly threaded message : his quotations show that >>> it is meant as a direct response to you but the last item in
References: is <uje6vv$gei$1@dont-email.me> which is another post by
James.
Those links don't work for me. They are interpreted as mailto:// links,
and the link itself says not to mail them. I don't know what to do with
them, and neither do Thunderbird or (when I'm using Google Groups)
Firefox or Chrome.
Those are Message-IDs, not links.
For example, your article to which I'm replying has this header line:
Message-ID: <up9ve1$roj9$1@dont-email.me>
There isn't necessarily a good way to look up an article given its Message-ID. The newsreader I use, Gnus, has a 'j' command (gnus-summary-goto-article) that takes either an article number (a
sequential number within a newsgroup, specific to a given NNTP server)
or a Message-ID (should be unique across all of Usenet) as an argument.
I don't know whether Thunderbird has a similar feature.
There's a package called "sinntp", a "tiny non-interactive NNTP client",
that includes a command "nttp-get" that can fetch an article given its Message-ID (if you specify the server and authentication information).
[...]
Those links don't work for me. They are interpreted as mailto:// links,
and the link itself says not to mail them. I don't know what to do with
them, and neither do Thunderbird or (when I'm using Google Groups)
Firefox or Chrome.
On 1/28/24 16:17, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 12:13:47 -0800...
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
Second item: I have the impression that in the last month or so
there have been a handful of postings from James Kuyper, in each
case intended as a direct response to a posting of mine, but not
threaded as a followup posting in the usual newsgroup way. Do
other people also see this? Or more directly, is there someone
who can offer an independent verification of such postings? If
it is happening, does anyone have an idea what might be causing
it?
James himself explains it in <uop3fd$1d8ao$1@dont-email.me> .And it is
an example of an incorrectly threaded message : his quotations show that
it is meant as a direct response to you but the last item in
References: is <uje6vv$gei$1@dont-email.me> which is another post by
James.
Those links don't work for me. They are interpreted as mailto:// links,
and the link itself says not to mail them. I don't know what to do with
them, and neither do Thunderbird or (when I'm using Google Groups)
Firefox or Chrome.
For Tim's benefit, the explanation he's referring to is at the beginning
of what is (currently) the very last message on the "Call to a function" thread, posted by me with a Date: header of Tue, 23 Jan 2024 14:19:09 -0500.
James himself explains it in <uop3fd$1d8ao$1@dont-email.me> .And it is
Those links don't work for me. They are interpreted as mailto:// links,
Spiros Bousbouras <spibou@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
Hear hear. Discussions about C++ in particular happen repeatedly ,
it's not just a recent occurrence.
IIRC, many of these come from google groups people.
There was a post here a while ago that stated Google made a
change that considered news groups with a '++' invalid.
So, many posts for comp.lang.c++ started ending up here. I
forgot the actual reason.
Anyway, soon google group posts will be an non-issue :)
Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> writes:
On 2024-01-30, James Kuyper <jameskuyper@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
Those links don't work for me. They are interpreted as mailto:// links,
and the link itself says not to mail them. I don't know what to do with
them, and neither do Thunderbird or (when I'm using Google Groups)
Firefox or Chrome.
You have to find the feature in your NNTP client which retrieves a
Usenet article by Message-ID, and paste that into its UI, possibly after
manually removing the delimiting angle brackets.
The angle brackets are actually part of the Message-ID. (Some software
might let them be omitted.)
Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> writes:
the space before the '<' is also part of the msg-id. I don't know
whether that was intended, but I don't think it's relevant to the
current discussion.
Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> writes:
On 2024-01-30, Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> writes:
the space before the '<' is also part of the msg-id. I don't know
whether that was intended, but I don't think it's relevant to the
current discussion.
In the same RFC:
Semantically, the angle bracket characters are not part of the
msg-id; the msg-id is what is contained between the two angle bracket
characters. [3.6.4. Identification fields]
Interesting, I missed that. (And I'm disappointed that the text
contradicts the grammar.)
On 1/30/24 4:44 PM, Keith Thompson wrote:
Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> writes:
On 2024-01-30, Keith Thompson <Keith.S.Thompson+u@gmail.com> wrote:
Kaz Kylheku <433-929-6894@kylheku.com> writes:
the space before the '<' is also part of the msg-id. I don't know
whether that was intended, but I don't think it's relevant to the
current discussion.
In the same RFC:
Semantically, the angle bracket characters are not part of the
msg-id; the msg-id is what is contained between the two angle bracket >>> characters. [3.6.4. Identification fields]
Interesting, I missed that. (And I'm disappointed that the text
contradicts the grammar.)
Its just a simplification to avoid needing another term in the grammer.
mssage-id = "Message-ID:" msg-id-field CRLF
msg-id-field = [CFWS] "<" msg-id ">" [CFWS]
msg-id = id-left "@: id-right
On 1/28/24 16:17, Spiros Bousbouras wrote:
On Sun, 28 Jan 2024 12:13:47 -0800
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
...
Second item: I have the impression that in the last month or so
there have been a handful of postings from James Kuyper, in each
case intended as a direct response to a posting of mine, but not
threaded as a followup posting in the usual newsgroup way. Do
other people also see this? Or more directly, is there someone
who can offer an independent verification of such postings? If
it is happening, does anyone have an idea what might be causing
it?
James himself explains it in <uop3fd$1d8ao$1@dont-email.me> .And it
is an example of an incorrectly threaded message : his quotations
show that it is meant as a direct response to you but the last item
in References: is <uje6vv$gei$1@dont-email.me> which is another
post by James.
Those links don't work for me. They are interpreted as mailto://
links, and the link itself says not to mail them. I don't know what
to do with them, and neither do Thunderbird or (when I'm using
Google Groups) Firefox or Chrome.
For Tim's benefit, the explanation he's referring to is at the
beginning of what is (currently) the very last message on the "Call
to a function" thread, posted by me with a Date: header of Tue, 23
Jan 2024 14:19:09 -0500.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 546 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 148:48:48 |
Calls: | 10,383 |
Calls today: | 8 |
Files: | 14,054 |
D/L today: |
2 files (1,861K bytes) |
Messages: | 6,417,760 |